General Education Teachers’ Perspectives on Challenges to the Inclusion of Students with Intellectual Disabilities in Qatar

Abstract

This study examines the challenges that general education teachers face in implementing inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities in Qatar. Employing a mixed-methods approach, quantitative data were collected from 255 teachers via a structured questionnaire, complemented by qualitative insights from semi-structured interviews with five participants. The findings indicate that teachers encounter moderate to high levels of difficulty, particularly in areas related to the school environment and the availability of educational resources. Significant demographic differences were observed, with male teachers and those working in primary schools reporting greater perceived barriers. Thematic analysis revealed six key factors influencing teachers’ perceptions: student diversity, instructional practices, teacher preparedness, school culture and environment, family and community involvement, and logistical challenges. Despite national policy support for inclusive education, the study reveals ongoing deficits in teacher training, institutional backing, and resource provision. These findings underscore the complex intersection of individual, institutional, and societal factors shaping inclusive education efforts. The study offers valuable insights for localizing inclusive education efforts in Qatar and similar contexts, with implications for educators, policymakers, and educational leaders committed to fostering equitable learning environments.

1. Introduction

Inclusive education has evolved from a rights-based initiative to a pedagogical and structural imperative, aiming to ensure equitable access to quality learning for all students, particularly those with disabilities (UNESCO, 2020). As a central pillar of global educational reform, it is grounded in the belief that every learner, regardless of ability, has the right to participate fully in mainstream schooling (Omwami & Rust, 2020; Rapp & Corral-Granados, 2024). Achieving this requires fundamental changes to school systems and instructional practices to accommodate the diverse needs of all students (Dildora, 2024).

Yet the practical implementation of inclusive education—especially for students with intellectual disabilities—remains complex and inconsistent. This study investigates the perspectives of general education teachers in Qatar, revealing structural, pedagogical, and cultural barriers to effective inclusion. By analyzing teacher perceptions across diverse demographic and institutional settings, the study offers insights relevant to educators, school leaders, and policymakers. The findings highlight the importance of teacher preparation, supportive policy frameworks, and inclusive school cultures in ensuring meaningful access to quality education for all students. This work contributes to global efforts to uphold the rights of learners with disabilities and advance more inclusive education systems. While inclusive education is a global movement, its implementation varies widely across contexts, shaped by sociocultural, policy, and institutional factors. In countries such as Qatar—where inclusive education is relatively recent—understanding local barriers and enablers becomes essential. This study adds to the broader discourse by offering empirical insights into general education teachers’ experiences in a non-Western, under-researched context. By localizing global principles, it helps illuminate how international ideals are interpreted, adapted, or challenged in different educational settings.

This inclusive approach draws on several theoretical frameworks. Inclusive pedagogy promotes collective responsibility for all learners and challenges deficit-oriented assumptions about ability (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). The social model of disability shifts the focus from individual impairments to environmental and societal barriers that hinder participation (Graham et al., 2023). Likewise, ecological systems theory highlights the interplay between learners and the multiple systems that influence their development and educational outcomes (Trang Thu et al., 2022). These perspectives emphasize the need for continual adaptation of educational environments, teaching strategies, and school cultures to promote equitable learning opportunities (Watkins & Ebersold, 2016).

This study examines the challenges faced by general education teachers in implementing inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities in Qatar. Using a large and demographically diverse sample, it provides empirical evidence on how teacher characteristics—such as experience, qualifications, and school context—influence perceptions of inclusion. The findings have significant implications for practice and policy, highlighting the need for targeted teacher training, improved resource provision, and robust implementation of inclusive strategies. By identifying systemic and instructional barriers, the study supports future research into the effectiveness of inclusive practices and contributes to national and international efforts to fulfill the rights of students with disabilities.

These frameworks emphasize that inclusive education is not simply about integrating students with disabilities into existing structures but about reconfiguring systems, relationships, and beliefs to ensure meaningful participation. Teachers play a pivotal role in this transformation. However, their attitudes, perceived competence, and preparedness are shaped by broader sociocultural and institutional dynamics—including gender roles, educational level, professional experience, and systemic support (Avramidis et al., 2019; Sharma & Sokal, 2016). By foregrounding teacher perspectives, this study highlights the subjective and structural factors that shape inclusive practice on the ground.

Inclusive education involves educating students with diverse abilities in shared classroom environments with the necessary support to enable full participation (Krischler et al., 2019; Namanyane & Shaoan, 2021). For students with intellectual disabilities, inclusion entails substantial adjustments in instructional methods, classroom organization, and teacher attitudes (Hornby & Kauffman, 2024). Research shows that effective inclusion for these learners depends on teacher efficacy, the availability of resources, individualized curricula, and collaborative professional cultures (Loreman, 2017).

Students with intellectual disabilities are among the most marginalized in mainstream classrooms, often facing low expectations, limited curricular access, and exclusionary attitudes (Schwab, 2020; Forlin & Chambers, 2011). These students require not only differentiated instruction but also a school-wide culture that values diversity and equity. The role of general education teachers is central—not only in delivering content but also in shaping a climate of acceptance and support. Understanding these teachers’ perspectives is critical for diagnosing system-level gaps in readiness and capacity for inclusion. Despite this awareness, many teachers report feeling unprepared and lack confidence in meeting the complex needs of students with intellectual disabilities (Gallego-Ortega & Rodríguez-Fuentes, 2021). Teachers’ beliefs and levels of preparedness significantly shape their willingness to implement inclusive practices, pointing to the need for both robust pre-service preparation and ongoing professional development (Dare & Nowicki, 2023; Keller et al., 2016).

Research also suggests that teacher-related variables—such as gender, teaching level, years of experience, and prior training—can significantly influence attitudes toward inclusion and perceived self-efficacy (de Boer et al., 2011; Malinen et al., 2013). For example, female teachers have often reported more favorable attitudes than male counterparts, while primary school teachers may face different inclusion challenges than those at the secondary level. These demographic dimensions are conceptually linked to how teachers position themselves in relation to inclusion efforts. Examining these factors offers important insight into how inclusion is enacted across school environments and teacher profiles.

The social model of disability reinforces the importance of reimagining education systems to dismantle structural barriers—such as rigid curricula, inaccessible environments, and exclusionary policies—that impede student success (Hollings, 2021; Spandagou, 2025). The challenge lies not only in teaching students with intellectual disabilities but in transforming the systems and mindsets that marginalize them (Woodcock et al., 2022).

In Qatar, where inclusive education policy has made formal strides but implementation remains uneven, systemic barriers are especially pertinent. Teachers’ voices offer a valuable lens for identifying disconnects between policy aspirations and school-level realities. This study responds to the need for context-sensitive research that bridges theoretical ideals with the lived experiences of practitioners in diverse educational contexts. Qatar has demonstrated policy-level commitment to inclusive education, aligning with international frameworks such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4 and incorporating inclusive education into its National Development Strategy (Ministry of Education and Higher Education, 2021). However, as in other Gulf countries, implementation is constrained by systemic, institutional, and cultural barriers (M. Al-Hendawi et al., 2023). These challenges mirror global patterns where inclusive education policies are frequently more aspirational than actionable (Ainscow & Sandil, 2010; Slee, 2018). Yet, the sociopolitical and educational structures in Qatar—and the Gulf region more broadly—present unique contextual dynamics that warrant closer empirical attention. This study positions Qatar as a valuable case for examining how inclusive education principles are interpreted and enacted within an education system undergoing rapid reform, but still influenced by traditional norms, centralized governance, and policy–practice gaps.

Although national policies promote inclusion, many schools in Qatar lack the structural capacity to meet the needs of students with intellectual disabilities. Shortcomings include insufficient specialized staff, limited adapted curricula, and a lack of sustained teacher training (M. K. Al-Hendawi et al., 2024). Alkhateeb et al. (2016) identify additional challenges, including heavy teaching workloads, ambiguous roles among educational stakeholders, dissatisfaction with university-level teacher training, and sociocultural dynamics that influence classroom practices. These issues reflect the tension between top-down policy mandates and bottom-up realities faced by teachers. As international studies have shown (e.g., Forlin & Sin, 2017; Sharma & Sokal, 2016), the success of inclusive education often hinges on whether general education teachers are adequately prepared, supported, and empowered to respond to diverse student needs.

Pre-service training programs in Qatar often provide only minimal exposure to inclusive education—typically confined to a single course—leaving educators underprepared for classroom realities. This insufficient preparation correlates with issues such as low teacher confidence, limited interdisciplinary collaboration, negative attitudes toward disability, and inadequate access to adaptive teaching materials (Al Jaffal, 2022; Hamid & Mohamed, 2021; Keller et al., 2016). This underscores a central paradox: while inclusive education is promoted as a national goal, the infrastructure to support teacher development and pedagogical innovation remains underdeveloped. The lived experiences of teachers therefore become essential for evaluating whether inclusive education policies translate into practice, particularly for students with intellectual disabilities—a group often excluded even within nominally inclusive settings (Florian & Camedda, 2020).

In this context, general education teachers play a pivotal role in enacting inclusive education policies within classrooms. Understanding their perspectives is crucial for identifying both the barriers and enablers of inclusive practice. This study explores how teachers in Qatar perceive and navigate the challenges of inclusion for students with intellectual disabilities across primary, preparatory, and secondary school levels. By examining perceptions across different school levels and demographic groups, the study uncovers how institutional constraints, individual experiences, and sociocultural expectations interact to shape inclusive practice. In doing so, it contributes to international scholarship by offering a culturally grounded, empirically rich account of inclusion in a rapidly developing education system—a context underrepresented in the global literature on inclusive education.

In response to increasing global and regional attention to inclusive education, this study contributes empirical evidence specific to Qatar, where educational reform is actively seeking to expand inclusive practices. The urgency of this issue is reflected in recent government initiatives, public discourse, and international commitments such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Despite growing advocacy, practical implementation remains inconsistent, particularly for students with intellectual disabilities. This study responds to that gap by exploring teachers’ lived experiences within inclusive policy frameworks that are still evolving.

1.1. Study Context: Inclusive Education in Qatar

Qatar has demonstrated policy-level commitment to inclusive education, aligning with international frameworks such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4 and incorporating inclusive education into its National Development Strategy (Ministry of Education and Higher Education, 2021). However, as in other Gulf countries, implementation remains inconsistent, constrained by systemic, institutional, and cultural barriers (M. Al-Hendawi et al., 2023).

Despite national policies promoting inclusion, many schools in Qatar lack the structural capacity to meet the needs of students with intellectual disabilities. Shortcomings include insufficient specialized staff, limited adapted curricula, and a lack of sustained teacher training (M. K. Al-Hendawi et al., 2024). Alkhateeb et al. (2016) identify additional challenges, including heavy teaching workloads, ambiguous roles among educational stakeholders, dissatisfaction with university-level teacher training, and sociocultural dynamics that influence classroom practices.

Teachers in this study also report that students with intellectual disabilities are often subjected to standardized assessments that fail to accommodate their learning profiles. This practice reflects a misalignment between inclusive policy ideals and practical application, diverging from international models where differentiated evaluation is a core component of inclusive education. Pre-service training programs in Qatar typically offer only limited exposure to inclusive education—often confined to a single course—leaving educators underprepared for inclusive classroom realities. This insufficient preparation is linked to recurring issues such as low teacher confidence, limited interdisciplinary collaboration, negative attitudes toward disability, and inadequate access to adaptive teaching materials (Al Jaffal, 2022; Hamid & Mohamed, 2021).

In this context, general education teachers play a pivotal role in enacting inclusive policies in classroom settings. Understanding their perspectives is essential for identifying both the barriers and enablers of inclusive practice. This study situates itself within this complex educational landscape to explore how teachers in Qatar perceive and navigate the challenges of inclusion for students with intellectual disabilities across primary, preparatory, and secondary school levels.

1.2. Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to examine the challenges general education teachers face in implementing inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities in Qatar.

The purpose of this study is to examine the challenges general education teachers face in implementing inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities in Qatar. It also seeks to identify key factors influencing teachers’ ability to support these students effectively in inclusive school settings.

By focusing on Qatar—a context that has embraced inclusive education in policy but struggles with consistent implementation—this study contributes to a broader understanding of how local conditions, institutional cultures, and teacher-related variables interact to support or hinder inclusion. Drawing on the social model of disability and inclusive pedagogy, the study frames inclusive practice as both a structural and relational process. Rather than focusing solely on student characteristics, it centers the role of teachers as change agents operating within complex systems of constraint and possibility.

Despite global progress in promoting inclusive education, obstacles remain—particularly in teacher preparedness, school infrastructure, and systemic support (de Boer et al., 2011; Lindner & Schwab, 2020). Teachers are central to inclusive practice, yet many feel inadequately equipped to address the academic and behavioral needs of students with intellectual disabilities (Alzahrani, 2020).

This gap between policy vision and classroom reality is especially pronounced for students with intellectual disabilities, who often require individualized support and differentiated instruction that current systems struggle to provide. Research highlights teacher attitudes, training, and access to resources as critical factors influencing inclusion outcomes (Florian & Camedda, 2020). Understanding these barriers from teachers’ perspectives is vital for designing responsive policies and effective professional development models.

In many systems, including those in the Gulf region, policy shifts toward inclusion have outpaced the development of professional competencies and institutional capacity (Elhoweris & Alsheikh, 2006). This disconnect leaves teachers to navigate vague directives, limited resources, and insufficient collaboration with support personnel. Moreover, teacher attitudes—shaped by training and school culture—are instrumental in creating inclusive learning environments (Malinen et al., 2013).

Previous studies also show that teacher perceptions of inclusion vary by demographic and professional characteristics such as gender, teaching level, experience, and qualification (Avramidis et al., 2019; Sharma & Sokal, 2016; Malinen et al., 2013). For instance, novice teachers may lack confidence due to limited exposure, while experienced teachers may struggle to adapt long-standing pedagogical routines. Cultural norms around gender and authority can further influence how teachers approach inclusion, particularly in conservative or hierarchical systems. These variations are grounded in ecological systems theory, which posits that educational actors are shaped by both individual and contextual factors.

To ensure alignment between findings and analysis, the discussion and interpretation of results are directly linked to the following research questions:

• What challenges do general education teachers perceive in implementing inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities?
• How do these challenges vary according to demographic and professional characteristics, including gender, age, academic qualification, teaching level, and years of experience?
• What factors influence teachers’ perceptions of the challenges involved in supporting students with intellectual disabilities in inclusive classrooms?

1.3. Theoretical Framework

Inclusive education draws on several foundational theories that inform our understanding of the barriers and enablers within school systems. Inclusive pedagogy, as developed by Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011), emphasizes designing learning opportunities that accommodate all students without categorizing them by ability. This framework resists deficit-based thinking and instead values diversity in the classroom.

The social model of disability offers a complementary perspective by shifting the focus from individual impairments to systemic barriers—such as inaccessible curricula, inflexible teaching methods, and exclusionary attitudes—that hinder participation (Graham et al., 2023). From this viewpoint, the challenge of inclusion lies not within the student but within the education system’s inability to adapt.

Ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1994) adds another layer by examining how various systems (micro-, meso-, exo-, and macrosystems) interact to shape the student’s educational experience. In this study, the theory is used to explore how school structures, teacher beliefs, family dynamics, and community perceptions collectively influence inclusion.

Together, these theoretical perspectives justify the study’s focus on teacher perceptions, as teachers operate at the intersection of policy, pedagogy, and daily classroom realities. They also support the inclusion of demographic variables such as gender, experience, and teaching level as influential factors within this multi-layered ecosystem.

1.4. Literature Review

Research consistently shows that general education teachers are critical to the success of inclusive education (Avramidis et al., 2019; Loreman, 2017). However, studies from diverse contexts report that many teachers feel unprepared to support students with intellectual disabilities (Gallego-Ortega & Rodríguez-Fuentes, 2021; Alzahrani, 2020). International literature identifies recurring barriers to inclusion: insufficient training, negative attitudes toward disability, lack of institutional support, and inadequate resources (Moberg et al., 2020; Sharma & Sokal, 2016). In the Gulf region, these issues are often intensified by sociocultural factors, such as stigma and limited awareness about disability (Alnahdi, 2019; Elhoweris & Alsheikh, 2006).

While much research has addressed general barriers to inclusion, few studies have specifically focused on intellectual disabilities within the Gulf, particularly in Qatar. This study contributes to filling that gap by providing empirical insights from teachers working within Qatar’s evolving inclusive education framework. It also extends prior work by examining how demographic factors—such as gender and teaching level—influence perceived challenges.

1.4.1. Global Theoretical Foundations of Inclusive Education

Inclusive education is grounded in the social model of disability, which views structural and cultural barriers—not individual impairments—as the main impediments to participation (Graham et al., 2023; Hollings, 2021). This perspective aligns with inclusive pedagogy, which rejects deficit-based thinking and emphasizes the teacher’s transformative role (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). Ecological systems theory further reinforces the idea that inclusive education is shaped by interacting layers—such as teacher beliefs, institutional policies, and community norms (Trang Thu et al., 2022). These frameworks position teachers not merely as policy implementers but as agents navigating complex socio-institutional landscapes.

1.4.2. Teacher Attitudes and Self-Efficacy in Inclusion Practice

Attitudes and beliefs are pivotal predictors of inclusive practice. Research consistently shows that teachers with more positive attitudes and higher self-efficacy are more likely to implement inclusion effectively (de Boer et al., 2011; Malinen et al., 2013). In Qatar, M. K. Al-Hendawi et al. (2024) found that female and less-experienced special education teachers reported higher self-efficacy, though overall levels remained low—mirroring global trends in teacher preparedness. Pre-service and in-service training also shape attitudes: in Oman, such training improved teachers’ confidence in using technology to support students with intellectual disabilities (Aldousari & Yuan, 2024). Similar findings across the Gulf confirm the strong link between teacher competence and pedagogical readiness (Aldousari & Yuan, 2024).

1.4.3. Regional Trends in Arab Inclusion Research

Arab countries have produced a growing but still limited body of inclusion research. Alkhateeb et al. (2016) reviewed literature from 1990 to 2014 and identified key barriers—such as negative attitudes and lack of training or infrastructure—as well as notable gaps. Subsequent work in Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia highlights persistent challenges, including limited special education staff, infrastructure deficits, and unclear policy guidelines (Aldousari & Yuan, 2024; Alkaabi & Al-Maadid, 2025; Alnahdi, 2019). In Qatar, Hamid and Mohamed (2021) found that future educators generally hold positive attitudes toward inclusion, though ambivalence persists, especially regarding intellectual disability. Similarly, M. K. Al-Hendawi et al. (2024) report that despite positive dispositions, teachers demonstrate low practical self-efficacy—underscoring the divide between theoretical support and applied readiness.

1.4.4. Contextual Challenges in the Qatari System

Qatar’s inclusive education efforts have progressed through policy reforms and alignment with international frameworks, including the CRPD and SDG 4 (Alkaabi & Al-Maadid, 2025). However, implementation remains uneven. Challenges include inadequate teacher training, a shortage of specialized staff, limited adapted curricula, and weak interdisciplinary collaboration (M. K. Al-Hendawi et al., 2024; Alkhateeb et al., 2016). While some institutions have taken pioneering steps, nationwide consistency is lacking. This pattern mirrors other Gulf states, where ambitious policy often outpaces school-level preparedness (M. Al-Hendawi et al., 2023; World Health Organization & World Bank, 2011).

1.4.5. Demographic and Institutional Influences on Teacher Experience

Demographic variables significantly shape teacher perceptions and self-efficacy in inclusive settings. Research shows that gender, experience, and qualifications correlate with varying attitudes and confidence levels: female teachers often report higher openness and efficacy, while novice teachers may feel less prepared (Avramidis et al., 2019; Malinen et al., 2013). In the Gulf context, cultural and systemic factors—including hierarchical gender norms—can amplify these differences. Exploring how such demographic traits relate to experiences provides important insights into the readiness and equity of inclusion practices within teacher communities.

2. Methodology

2.1. Research Design

This study employed a mixed-methods research design, integrating both quantitative and qualitative approaches to examine the challenges general education teachers face in implementing inclusion policies for students with intellectual disabilities in Qatari schools. Quantitative data were collected through a structured questionnaire designed to capture teachers’ attitudes and perceptions across a broad sample. Concurrently, qualitative insights were gathered through semi-structured interviews with a purposively selected group of participants, offering a deeper exploration of their lived experiences and classroom contexts. This integrative approach enabled data triangulation, linking generalizable trends with in-depth, contextualized narratives and enhancing the credibility of the findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).

This design is particularly well-suited to studying inclusive education in a context like Qatar, where practices are evolving within complex sociocultural and institutional dynamics. The quantitative component allows for the identification of patterns and demographic differences in teacher perceptions, aligning with the study’s second research question. In contrast, the qualitative component provides a nuanced understanding of how these perceptions are shaped by school environments, teacher identities, and classroom realities.

Moreover, the mixed-methods approach reflects the study’s theoretical grounding in ecological systems theory and the social model of disability, both of which emphasize the interplay between individual actors and broader systemic conditions. Quantitative data reveal large-scale structural trends, while qualitative narratives highlight the human dimensions of inclusion—teacher agency, beliefs, and constraints—offering a multilayered perspective consistent with these frameworks.

This design also contributes methodologically to the inclusive education literature in the Gulf region, where qualitative research is limited and mixed-methods studies remain underutilized. By combining breadth and depth, the study strengthens its capacity to inform practice, policy, and future research in culturally specific yet globally relevant contexts.

2.2. Participants

The study targeted general education teachers working in inclusive schools across Qatar. The quantitative component involved 255 teachers drawn from a variety of public inclusive schools, representing a diverse cross-section of demographic characteristics—including gender, age, academic qualifications, teaching level, and years of experience.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the quantitative sample (N = 255).

Variable	Category	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	162	63.5%
	Female	93	36.5%
	Total	255	100.0%
Age Group	25–35 years	53	20.8%
	36–45 years	109	42.7%
	46 years and above	93	36.5%
	Total	255	100.0%
Educational Level	Diploma	9	3.5%
	Bachelor’s	169	66.3%
	Graduate Studies	77	30.2%
	Total	255	100.0%
Teaching Stage	Primary	141	55.3%
	Preparatory	15	5.9%
	Secondary	99	38.8%
	Total	255	100.0%
Years of Experience	5 years or less	39	15.3%
	6–10 years	59	23.1%
	11–15 years	47	18.4%
	16 years or more	110	43.1%
	Total	255	100.0%

presents the demographic distribution of the quantitative sample.

For the qualitative component, five teachers (three males and two females) were purposefully selected to participate in semi-structured interviews. These participants varied in gender, age, subject area, and teaching stage.

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of interviewed participants (N = 5).

Name	Gender	Age	Specialization	Teaching Stage
Ayman	Male	35	Science	Primary
Hala	Female	43	Arabic	Primary
Faten	Female	54	Social Studies	Preparatory
Ali	Male	50	Mathematics	Secondary
Hassan	Male	45	Mathematics	Preparatory

Note. Names are pseudonyms.

summarizes the demographic characteristics of the interviewed teachers.

2.3. Instruments

This study employed two primary instruments for data collection: a structured questionnaire and a semi-structured interview protocol.

The questionnaire included 25 items grouped into five subscales: School Environment (6 items), Competence and Beliefs (5 items), Student Characteristics (4 items), Family Engagement (5 items), and Educational Resources (5 items).

An example item from the “Educational Resources” subscale is “I have access to the materials I need to support students with intellectual disabilities.”

The instrument was informed by prior studies on teacher perceptions (Avramidis et al., 2019; Moberg et al., 2020) and reviewed by two experts for content validity. A pilot study involving 27 teachers yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84 overall, with subscale alphas ranging from 0.75 to 0.88.

Exploratory factor analysis was conducted during the pilot phase to refine item groupings. However, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was not performed—this is acknowledged as a study limitation and a potential direction for future validation.

For the qualitative component, the interview guide was based on literature emphasizing teacher voice in inclusive education (Florian & Rouse, 2009; de Boer et al., 2011). Topics included instructional barriers, school support, and family engagement. Interviewees were drawn from the broader survey pool, with intentional inclusion of teachers from subgroups reporting higher levels of perceived challenge, such as male teachers and those at the primary level.

2.4. Data Collection

Prior to initiating data collection, ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board at Qatar University (Approval No. QU-IRB 299/2024-EA). Following approval, the researchers contacted public schools across Qatar that implement inclusive education for students formally diagnosed with intellectual disabilities. School administrators were approached to request participation and facilitate access to general education teachers.

For the quantitative phase, the questionnaire was distributed electronically through official school communication channels and educational networks. Participants were informed of the study’s purpose, the voluntary nature of participation, and the confidentiality of their responses. Completion and submission of the questionnaire were considered to imply informed consent. A total of 255 completed responses were collected.

For the qualitative phase, five teachers were purposively selected from among those who had completed the questionnaire and expressed interest in participating in follow-up interviews. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in person at the teachers’ respective schools, based on their scheduling preferences. Each interview lasted between 30 and 45 min and was audio-recorded with the participants’ consent.

2.5. Data Analysis

This study employed both quantitative and qualitative data analysis techniques to investigate the challenges general education teachers face in implementing inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities in Qatar.

For the quantitative component, data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, Version 28). Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) were used to summarize teachers’ responses.

For the qualitative component, data from the semi-structured interviews were analyzed thematically using ATLAS.ti (Version 25). All interviews were transcribed verbatim to ensure the accuracy and integrity of participants’ responses. A hybrid coding strategy was used, combining deductive codes derived from the research questions and relevant literature with inductive codes that emerged from the data. Two researchers independently conducted the initial coding to ensure inter-rater reliability and reduce individual bias. The inter-rater reliability between coders was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa and yielded a value of κ = 0.81, indicating strong agreement. Discrepancies in coding were addressed through collaborative discussions, leading to the refinement of the coding framework. The coded data were then iteratively compared, categorized, and synthesized into broader themes that captured recurring patterns and shared meanings across participants’ narratives.

To enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings, several validation strategies were employed. Member checking was conducted by sharing preliminary thematic interpretations with selected participants to verify their accuracy. Methodological triangulation was also maintained by integrating insights from both quantitative and qualitative data sources, thereby strengthening the validity of the conclusions. An audit trail was also maintained to document coding decisions and theme development.

3. Results

3.1. Perceived Challenges’ Level

The first research question explored the extent to which general education teachers perceive challenges in implementing inclusive education within Qatari schools. To address this question, the researchers calculated the means and standard deviations of teachers’ responses to the overall scale and its five subdimensions. The results are presented in

Table 3. Perceived challenges among general education teachers in inclusive schools (N = 255).

Dimension	M	SD	Level of Challenge
School Environment	4.40	0.58	High
Competence and Beliefs	3.62	0.57	Moderate
Student Characteristics	2.61	0.74	Moderate
Family Engagement	3.23	0.53	Moderate
Educational Resources	4.00	0.73	High
Overall Challenges	3.58	0.40	Moderate

Note. Challenge levels were categorized using equal-interval classification of the mean: Low (1.00–2.33), Moderate (2.34–3.66), High (3.67–5.00).

.

Table 3 shows that general education teachers perceived a moderate overall level of challenges in implementing inclusive education (M = 3.58, SD = 0.40). Two of the five dimensions assessed were rated as high challenges: School Environment (M = 4.40, SD = 0.58) and Educational Resources (M = 4.00, SD = 0.73). These high ratings suggest significant concerns about physical settings and the availability of instructional materials necessary to support inclusion effectively. The remaining three dimensions were perceived as moderate challenges. Competence and Beliefs (M = 3.62, SD = 0.57) indicate that teachers had moderate concerns about their preparedness and attitudes toward inclusion. Family Engagement (M = 3.23, SD = 0.53) reflects challenges involving families of students with disabilities. Student Characteristics (M = 2.61, SD = 0.74), while the lowest among the dimensions, still represents moderate difficulty, pointing to the complex needs of students with intellectual disabilities in inclusive classrooms.

3.2. Gender Differences

To examine whether the level of perceived challenges in inclusive education differs by gender, mean scores and standard deviations were calculated for male and female teachers across each scale dimension and the overall score, as shown in

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for perceived challenges by gender (N = 255).

Dimension	Gender	n	M	SD
School Environment	Male	162	4.46	0.53
	Female	93	4.31	0.66
Competence and Beliefs	Male	162	3.67	0.54
	Female	93	3.52	0.60
Student Characteristics	Male	162	2.61	0.71
	Female	93	2.6	0.80
Family Engagement	Male	162	3.24	0.51
	Female	93	3.22	0.57
Educational Resources	Male	162	4.14	0.59
	Female	93	3.75	0.88
Overall Challenges	Male	162	3.62	0.36
	Female	93	3.48	0.43

.

Examining the means across the scale and its dimensions reveals observable differences between male and female teachers. For instance, the overall mean score reported by female teachers was 3.48, whereas the corresponding mean for male teachers was higher at 3.84. To determine whether these differences were statistically significant, an independent samples t-test was conducted, as presented in

Table 5. Independent samples t-test for gender-based differences in perceived challenges.

Dimension	t	df	p
School Environment	−1.99	253	0.05
Competence and Beliefs	−2.08	253	0.04
Student Characteristics	0.07	253	0.94
Family Engagement	−0.34	253	0.73
Educational Resources	−4.29	253	0.00
Overall Challenges	−2.81	253	0.01

.

The results of the independent samples t-test presented in Table 5 indicate statistically significant gender-based differences in teachers’ perceptions of the challenges associated with including students with intellectual disabilities. Male teachers reported significantly higher levels of perceived challenges than female teachers in the overall scale (t(253) = −2.81, p = 0.01), as well as in the dimensions of School Environment (t(253) = −1.99, p = 0.05), Competence and Beliefs (t(253) = −2.08, p = 0.04), and Educational Resources (t(253) = −4.29, p < 0.001). In contrast, no significant differences were observed between male and female teachers in the dimensions of Student Characteristics (t(253) = 0.07, p = 0.94) and Family Engagement (t(253) = −0.34, p = 0.73), suggesting a shared perception of challenges in these areas regardless of gender.

3.3. Age Differences

To explore the age effect on teachers’ perceived challenges, the means of teachers’ responses were calculated for each age group (25–35, 36–45, and 46 years and above), as presented in

Table 6. Perceived level of challenges by teacher age group (N = 255).

Dimension	Age Group	n	M	SD
School Environment	25–35 years	53	4.48	0.54
	36–45 years	109	4.44	0.58
	46 and above	93	4.3	0.61
Competence and Beliefs	25–35 years	53	3.68	0.57
	36–45 years	109	3.61	0.56
	46 and above	93	3.57	0.58
Student Characteristics	25–35 years	53	2.61	0.81
	36–45 years	109	2.67	0.80
	46 and above	93	2.55	0.63
Family Engagement	25–35 years	53	3.26	0.54
	36–45 years	109	3.17	0.58
	46 and above	93	3.29	0.47
Educational Resources	25–35 years	53	4.16	0.68
	36–45 years	109	3.99	0.74
	46 and above	93	3.92	0.75
Overall Challenges	25–35 years	53	3.64	0.36
	36–45 years	109	3.58	0.41
	46 and above	93	3.53	0.40

.

The results in the above table indicate that perceived challenges of teachers’ responses related to the inclusion of students with disabilities across different age groups showed slight variations. Teachers in the oldest age group (46 years and above) reported the lowest overall level of perceived challenges (M = 3.53), while those in the youngest age group (25–35 years) reported the highest (M = 3.64). Despite these numerical differences, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine whether these differences were statistically significant.

The results of the ANOVA indicated that the differences in perceived challenges, overall and across all dimensions, were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Hence, teacher age does not significantly affect how they perceive the challenges of inclusive education.

3.4. Academic Qualification Differences

The means and standard deviations of teachers’ responses to the study instrument were calculated to examine whether perceived challenges differ according to their academic qualifications.

Table 7. Perceived level of challenges by academic qualification (N = 255).

Dimension	Qualification	n	M	SD
School Environment	Diploma	9	4.27	0.39
	Bachelor’s	169	4.40	0.60
	Graduate	77	4.45	0.56
Competence and Beliefs	Diploma	9	3.56	0.48
	Bachelor’s	169	3.60	0.62
	Graduate	77	3.68	0.45
Student Characteristics	Diploma	9	2.82	0.85
	Bachelor’s	169	2.63	0.80
	Graduate	77	2.57	0.59
Family Engagement	Diploma	9	3.51	0.61
	Bachelor’s	169	3.21	0.56
	Graduate	77	3.26	0.47
Educational Resources	Diploma	9	4.16	0.49
	Bachelor’s	169	3.96	0.77
	Graduate	77	4.06	0.67
Overall Challenges	Diploma	9	3.66	0.35
	Bachelor’s	169	3.56	0.42
	Graduate	77	3.60	0.35

Note. Diploma: a one-year degree equivalent to a teacher’s certificate.

presents the results by qualification category: diploma, bachelor’s, and postgraduate degrees.

Based on the mean scores of teachers’ responses across different academic qualifications, some variations were observed in their perceptions of the challenges associated with the inclusion of students with disabilities. Teachers holding a diploma reported the highest overall mean score (M = 3.66), indicating a high level of perceived challenges. In contrast, teachers with bachelor’s degrees (M = 3.56) and graduate degrees (M = 3.60) reported moderate challenges, though the differences in means were relatively small.

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether these observed differences were statistically significant. The results showed that the differences in perceived challenges, on the overall scale and across all dimensions, were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). These results indicate that teachers expressed similar views on the barriers to effectively including students with disabilities in general education settings, regardless of their qualification level.

3.5. Teaching Stage Differences

To explore whether perceived challenges differ according to the teaching stage, the means and standard deviations of teachers’ responses were calculated across the three instructional levels: primary, preparatory, and secondary.

Table 8. Perceived level of challenges by teaching stage (N = 255).

Dimension	Teaching Stage	n	M	SD
School Environment	Primary	141	4.45	0.57
	Preparatory	15	4.37	0.69
	Secondary	99	4.35	0.58
Competence and Beliefs	Primary	141	3.69	0.59
	Preparatory	15	3.64	0.41
	Secondary	99	3.50	0.55
Student Characteristics	Primary	141	2.58	0.77
	Preparatory	15	2.72	0.67
	Secondary	99	2.65	0.72
Family Engagement	Primary	141	3.25	0.52
	Preparatory	15	3.29	0.36
	Secondary	99	3.21	0.58
Educational Resources	Primary	141	4.12	0.68
	Preparatory	15	3.99	0.69
	Secondary	99	3.84	0.79
Overall Challenges	Primary	141	3.62	0.40
	Preparatory	15	3.60	0.42
	Secondary	99	3.51	0.38

presents the descriptive statistics for each subdimension of the scale, disaggregated by teaching stage.

The results in Table 8 revealed that general education teachers across different teaching stages (primary, preparatory, and secondary) reported varying levels of perceived challenges related to the inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities. The overall perceived challenge was highest among primary school teachers (M = 3.62), compared to those in the preparatory (M = 3.60) and secondary (M = 3.51) stages. Despite these differences in mean scores, one-way ANOVA showed no statistically significant differences in the overall challenge level across teaching stages (p > 0.05), indicating that the teaching stage does not substantially influence the overall perception of inclusion-related challenges.

However, statistically significant differences emerged in two specific dimensions: Competence and Beliefs and Educational Resources (p < 0.05). Post hoc comparisons using the Scheffé test revealed that primary school teachers reported significantly higher challenges than secondary school teachers. In the Competence and Beliefs dimension, the mean difference between primary and secondary stages was statistically significant (mean difference = 0.19, p = 0.040), suggesting that primary teachers perceive greater challenges related to teacher preparedness, inclusion policy, and instructional burden. Similarly, in the Educational Resources dimension, primary teachers reported higher levels of challenge than their secondary counterparts (mean difference = 0.28, p = 0.016), reflecting concerns about the adequacy of materials and infrastructural support for implementing inclusive education at the primary level.

3.6. Experience Differences

To investigate whether teachers’ perceptions of inclusion-related challenges vary according to their years of teaching experience, means and standard deviations were calculated for each dimension of the study instrument across four experience categories: 5 years or less, 6–10 years, 11–15 years, and 16 years or more.

Table 9. Perceived level of challenges by teaching experience (N = 255).

Dimension	Teaching Experience	n	M	SD
School Environment	5 years and under	39	4.44	0.55
	6–10 years	59	4.41	0.61
	11–15 years	47	4.55	0.46
	16 years and above	110	4.33	0.62
Competence and Beliefs	5 years and under	39	3.75	0.50
	6–10 years	59	3.58	0.54
	11–15 years	47	3.59	0.65
	16 years and above	110	3.60	0.57
Student Characteristics	5 years and under	39	2.58	0.84
	6–10 years	59	2.70	0.74
	11–15 years	47	2.64	0.78
	16 years and above	110	2.57	0.70
Family Engagement	5 years and under	39	3.27	0.51
	6–10 years	59	3.21	0.56
	11–15 years	47	3.29	0.59
	16 years and above	110	3.21	0.51
Educational Resources	5 years and under	39	4.14	0.60
	6–10 years	59	4.03	0.71
	11–15 years	47	4.18	0.79
	16 years and above	110	3.86	0.75
Overall Challenges	5 years and under	39	3.64	0.34
	6–10 years	59	3.59	0.43
	11–15 years	47	3.65	0.38
	16 years and above	110	3.51	0.40

presents the results.

Analyzing perceived challenges by teaching experience revealed nuanced differences among the four experience groups. Teachers with 11–15 years of experience reported the highest overall mean score (M = 3.65), closely followed by those with 5 years or less (M = 3.64), while those with 16 years or more reported the lowest overall challenge level (M = 3.51). Despite these apparent variations, one-way ANOVA showed that overall differences in challenge perception across experience levels were not statistically significant (F = 1.762, p = 0.155). This indicates that teaching experience, in general, does not significantly affect how teachers perceive the overall challenges of inclusion. However, a significant difference emerged in the Educational Resources dimension (F = 2.751, p = 0.043). Post hoc comparisons using the Least Significant Difference (LSD) test revealed that teachers with 16 years or more of experience perceived significantly more challenges related to the availability of educational resources compared to those with 5 years or less (p = 0.043) and those with 11–15 years of experience (p = 0.013). This finding suggests that more experienced teachers may have heightened expectations or broader awareness of resource inadequacies, particularly regarding the tools and materials needed to support students with intellectual disabilities. Meanwhile, no significant differences were found across experience groups in the other dimensions, including School Environment, Competence and Beliefs, Student Characteristics, and Family Engagement (p > 0.05). This highlights the consistency in perceptions of inclusion challenges across varying levels of teaching tenure, with resource-related concerns being the key area of divergence.

3.7. Factors Influencing Challenges in Inclusive Education

Thematic analysis of the interview data revealed that teachers’ perceptions of the challenges associated with supporting students with intellectual disabilities in inclusive classrooms are shaped by six interrelated factors: student diversity, teaching practices, teacher capacity, school culture and environment, family and community engagement, and logistical barriers.

Table 10. Themes, categories, and example codes.

Theme	Categories	Example Codes
Student Diversity	Student Needs, Academic Achievement, Social Equity	Emotional Well-being, Cognitive Challenges, Low Performance, Disruptive Behavior
Teaching Practices	Instructional Strategies, Curricula, Social Interaction	Curriculum Adaptation, Social Skills, Communication Competence, Peer Interaction
Teacher Capacity	Attitudes, Professional Development, Collaboration, Teamwork	Teacher Preparation, Workshops for Teachers, Teacher Responsibility, Collaboration, Teamwork
School Culture and Environment	Learning Environment, School Policy, Support Services, Systemic Issues	Inclusive Education, Classroom Environment, Equity in Education, School Policy, Physical Environment
Family and Community Engagement	Parental Involvement, Community	Parental Involvement, Family Support, Home-School Communication, Counseling, Specialized Assistance
Logistical Barriers	Time, Resource Constraints	Lack of Resources, Teacher Shortage, Time Pressure

shows the thematic analysis results.

3.8. Student Diversity

The theme of student diversity captures the multifaceted challenges teachers face in supporting students with intellectual disabilities in inclusive classrooms. This theme is reflected across three interconnected sub-themes: student needs, academic achievement, and social equity.

Student Needs. Teachers consistently emphasized that students with intellectual disabilities exhibit a broad spectrum of needs that go far beyond the academic domain. These include challenges with comprehension, sustained attention, emotional and behavioral regulation, and social engagement. Many general education teachers felt insufficiently prepared to address these multifaceted needs within mainstream classrooms.

Ayman highlighted the issue of cognitive processing speed, noting that students with intellectual disabilities often require significantly more time to engage with instructional tasks: “Students with intellectual disabilities take a longer time than other students to comprehend; they need more time. For example, one year I had a student who was slow to process questions and respond, even in writing. So it takes time.”

Similarly, Ali discussed the widening academic gap that arises from individual cognitive differences, particularly when high-achieving students share the same learning environment: “Keeping up with instruction is difficult because of individual differences among students. Some students are high-achieving and very intelligent, which creates a large gap between them and other students.”

Beyond cognitive and academic concerns, teachers were particularly sensitive to the emotional impact of inappropriate academic demands on students with intellectual disabilities. Hala reflected on the subtle but harmful effects of mismatched instruction:

“The psychological aspect plays a major role… when teachers give students with intellectual disabilities a worksheet that doesn’t match their abilities, or a test that isn’t suited to their level, or a question that’s above their ability… we are the ones showing them that something is wrong with them.”

Behavioral challenges were also described as a central concern, primarily when specialized approaches did not support students’ needs. Ayman illustrated how some behaviors can become disruptive without the right interventions: “Handling some students in the classroom is very difficult. For example, a student wouldn’t listen to the teacher at all. Whatever you asked him, he wouldn’t respond, not at all. He wouldn’t listen. Sometimes he would make noises.”

Academic Achievement. Teachers expressed serious concerns about the academic progress of students with intellectual disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Many believe that while social inclusion may be partially achieved, the academic inclusion of these students remains limited and superficial. Faten underscored this disparity, stating: “What you’re doing here is only social inclusion, but in terms of education, they can’t reach the cognitive level required.” She further emphasized that the official narratives about the success of inclusion often do not reflect the on-the-ground realities: “They tell us there are success stories. No, I see the reality on the ground. I’m there, and what’s happening is not real academic achievement.”

These sentiments were echoed by Ayman, who illustrated the challenge of placing students with foundational skill deficits into advanced grade levels without adequate differentiation: “If the students have problems in reading and writing, and you include them in a fifth or sixth grade class, the subject will be too difficult for them.” Teachers believed that students with intellectual disabilities often struggle to access grade-level curricula meaningfully, resulting in limited academic gains despite their physical presence in mainstream classrooms.

Social Equity. Teachers emphasized that fostering social equity in inclusive classrooms requires deliberate strategies to promote interaction, fairness, and peer acceptance. They highlighted that social inclusion is not automatically achieved through physical placement alone, but rather through structured opportunities that encourage meaningful engagement among students.

Ayman noted the importance of shared activities beyond the academic setting to strengthen social bonds and acceptance: “Social interaction could be promoted among students without disabilities toward their peers with disabilities by involving them together in non-academic activities.” In addition to interaction, cultivating a classroom culture grounded in equity was essential. Ali pointed out the need to shift away from overly competitive environments in favor of inclusive values: “It is necessary to instill a culture of fairness among students and avoid fostering a sense of individual competition.” Teachers also recognized their pivotal role in shaping the social dynamics of the classroom. Hala explained “I believe all these threads are in the teacher’s hands. The teacher plays a major role in whether the other students accept or reject students with disabilities.”

3.9. Teaching Practices

Teaching practices emerged as a central theme influencing the success of inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities. Teachers identified three key areas, namely instructional strategies, curricula, and social interaction, that shape their ability to support diverse learners effectively.

Instructional Strategies. Teachers expressed concerns about the adequacy of current instructional practices to meet the complex needs of students with intellectual disabilities in inclusive classrooms. A recurring theme was the mismatch between general education teaching methods and the specialized approaches these students require. Hala pointed out that even skilled and experienced teachers often lack the specific training needed to support students with intellectual disabilities effectively: “Teachers don’t know how to deal with this student… I know capable teachers who are highly professional, but this isn’t their specialty.”

Faten emphasized that inclusion demands more than superficial differentiation. Students need thoughtfully designed instruction that aligns with their learning profiles, rather than simplified or separate materials: “They need a teacher who knows how to work with them, not just someone who hands them a different worksheet and calls it a day.” She also noted the instructional disruptions caused by the need to adapt teaching on the spot, explaining: “The teacher sometimes has to pause the lesson in order to use alternative methods to convey the information to the student who needs additional support.”

Additionally, teachers acknowledged their practical limitations when trying to implement individualized strategies. Hassan highlighted how the presence of students with more severe disabilities can overwhelm teachers who are already managing full classrooms: “If there is a severe disability, such as an intellectual or physical disability, this will burden the teacher in the classroom.”

Curricula. Teachers consistently emphasized that the existing general education curriculum does not adequately support the learning needs of students with intellectual disabilities. Many expressed concern that the standard curriculum places unrealistic demands on these students without providing appropriate differentiation, resources, or instructional tools. Ali observed that “The curriculum doesn’t meet the challenges students face. Students with intellectual disabilities are forced to follow the standard textbook without access to educational tools or materials tailored for these groups and their varying abilities.” He further recommended that “We should provide a simpler curriculum for students with intellectual disabilities.”

Similarly, Hassan argued that curricular demands often exceed the students’ cognitive capacities, suggesting the need for instructional reform:

“The standard curriculum is too demanding for students with intellectual disabilities. It doesn’t align with their cognitive abilities. Instead, we should develop a simplified, individualized curriculum that focuses on foundational skills and helps build their self-confidence by assigning tasks they can successfully complete.”

Teachers also offered practical suggestions for curriculum adaptation. Ayman proposed modifying content and expectations based on students’ abilities:

“The curriculum must be adapted for them. For example, suppose a lesson is extensive or has too many objectives. In that case, we can reduce the number of goals or exercises for the student with intellectual disabilities to match their ability.”

Moreover, Hala emphasized that the needs of students with intellectual disabilities extend far beyond typical low academic performance, requiring comprehensive curricular and pedagogical adjustments: “The student truly requires special care and a specific approach tailored to their needs. We are not talking about students with disabilities who are simply low-performing; their situation is more complex.”

Social Interaction. Teachers expressed concerns about the quality and dynamics of social interactions between students with intellectual disabilities and their peers in inclusive classrooms. While inclusion policies aim to promote positive peer relationships and social integration, teachers reported that these goals are not always realized in practice due to a lack of awareness, understanding, and proper mediation. Hassan described persistent challenges in managing peer relations, noting “Every day, they are involved in a fight or conflict with other students.” These frequent altercations suggest that students with intellectual disabilities may struggle to navigate peer dynamics without structured support. Faten similarly emphasized the risk involved in poorly managed inclusion, warning that “They may experience episodes of intense agitation, during which they can become a danger to themselves, let alone to their peers.”

Ali acknowledged that inclusion has succeeded, to some extent, in promoting superficial social interaction, but questioned its depth and consistency: “The current state of educational services primarily supports inclusion from a social perspective.” His observation points to a broader gap between policy and practice, where physical presence in the classroom does not necessarily translate into meaningful relationships or mutual understanding.

Ayman further illustrated how peer interactions are often marred by misunderstanding and stigma. He stated “Sometimes, students get into fights with the student with disability and treat them like any other student. They might hit, insult, or report them to the teacher. The students lack the necessary awareness and understanding.”

3.10. Teacher Capacity

Teacher capacity emerged as a critical theme in shaping the implementation and sustainability of inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities. The findings pointed to three interrelated sub-themes: attitudes, professional development, and collaboration.

Attitudes. Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion revealed a spectrum ranging from strong advocacy to deep skepticism, reflecting both philosophical alignment with inclusive education and practical concerns about its implementation. Hala demonstrated a clear commitment to inclusive values, affirming “Of course, it’s one of their rights. As a teacher in the classroom, you are responsible for all students, regardless of their diversity.” Her statement reflects an understanding of inclusion as both an ethical obligation and a professional responsibility to ensure equitable access to education.

In contrast, Faten openly questioned the practicality of inclusion in general education settings. “I’m not convinced about inclusion,” she stated, expressing doubts about whether inclusive classrooms can realistically accommodate the needs of students with intellectual disabilities. She elaborated “Even mild intellectual disabilities can disrupt the pace of the lesson and hinder overall classroom flow, as these students may require more time, which can impact their peers who complete tasks more quickly.”

Faten also admitted a reluctance to pursue professional growth in inclusive practices, stating that “I don’t want to develop myself in this area. I’m not a special education specialist; I’m a regular teacher for regular students.” Her view captures the tension many teachers feel between the ideals of inclusive education and the practical realities of classroom instruction and time management.

While Hala supported the principles of inclusion, she also acknowledged the implementation challenges. Drawing on her classroom observations, she shared “Based on my experience and direct observation of eight different classrooms, most of which included students with varying levels of disability, I have found that the presence of a student with a disability often disrupts the overall classroom environment.” Her reflection points to a broader concern that inclusion, if not properly supported, can strain classroom dynamics and affect the learning experience for all students.

Moreover, teachers highlighted a cultural resistance among some colleagues toward inclusive practices. Hassan explained “Part of the challenge lies in the teachers’ resistance to accepting these students. Some say, ‘No, I don’t want her in my class; put her in another teacher’s class.’ This often happens, especially at the beginning of the school year.” Such resistance suggests that attitudinal obstacles remain entrenched in school culture beyond logistical barriers.

Professional Development. Teachers consistently emphasized the urgent need for targeted professional development to equip them with the skills and confidence to teach students with intellectual disabilities effectively. A recurring theme in the interviews was that general education teachers often lacked the specialized training required to address the unique needs of these students. Faten candidly admitted “I’m a general education teacher. I have no experience in presenting concepts or lessons to a student with intellectual disabilities… it’s not my specialty.” Similarly, she acknowledged her limitations by stating “I don’t have this kind of expertise, I haven’t taken those workshops, and I’m not able to take such workshops.”

Hassan also stressed the necessity of specialist involvement, explaining “This student needs a specialist because he doesn’t respond to me or to the other students.” His comment underscores how general education teachers may feel professionally unequipped to manage and support students whose needs fall outside their training.

Ayman, on the other hand, highlighted the importance of continuous learning: “It’s important to gain new experiences or knowledge about dealing with students with intellectual disabilities.” Ali supported his statement, who framed professional growth as both a responsibility and a benefit: “Yes, of course. It is essential for individuals to continue learning and gaining experience, and we learn a lot from practical situations. For this reason, I believe that training courses and professional development workshops are very important.”

Collaboration. To promote successful inclusion for students with intellectual disabilities, collaboration is a vital component. Teachers emphasized the importance of joint efforts among educators, families, and peers to ensure academic and social progress. Hassan highlighted the need for collective responsibility in supporting students: “We should as a team support this student both behaviorally and academically.” This sentiment was echoed by Ali, who underscored the importance of school-home partnerships in fostering consistent support: “Involving the school in the details of the child’s life outside school hours is essential, as is fostering collaboration between the school and the parents to track the student’s progress and development.”

He further asserted that schools must focus on academic instruction and equip families with the tools to reinforce inclusive practices at home: “It is also the school’s responsibility to support the family at home by guiding them on the appropriate ways to interact with and support the child.”

From a classroom perspective, Ayman pointed to the power of peer awareness and inclusive values: “Teamwork and working in a spirit of collaboration are among the most important factors that can help typically developing students support their peers with special needs.” He also stressed the importance of preparing students without disabilities to participate actively in inclusion: “Other students must be made aware of how to interact with peers who have disabilities appropriately.”

3.11. School Culture and Environment

Teachers’ perspectives revealed that the broader school culture plays a critical role in shaping the success or failure of inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities. Across this theme, four interconnected sub-themes emerged: learning environment, school policy, support services, and systemic issues.

Learning Environment. Teachers emphasized that the’ physical and instructional environment of inclusive classrooms plays a critical role in supporting or hindering the success of students with intellectual disabilities. One of the most common concerns was the lack of appropriate educational materials and sensory support for differentiated instruction. Ali highlighted this issue, stating “We see that our classrooms lack many educational resources, whether sensory or visual. The classrooms are almost empty of these materials.” This absence of tools limits engagement and restricts teachers’ ability to meet diverse student needs effectively.

In addition to material resources, teachers discussed the importance of providing individualized, skill-building support within the classroom. Ayman described a proactive approach to inclusion, explaining the following:

“So, for example, when working with a student who needs support, especially if the goal is to help them integrate well into the classroom, you teach them what to do, behave, study, and solve problems. I believe these things help them integrate more effectively into the class.”

Concerns were also raised about systemic practices that undermine an inclusive learning environment. Hala criticized the use of standardized testing practices for students with intellectual disabilities, remarking “You know, they take the standard test just like everyone else, and that’s a major injustice. Honestly, I believe that simply giving a student with a mild intellectual disability extra time is not enough.”

School Policy. Teachers highlighted a significant disconnect between the inclusive education policies and their classroom implementation. While formal regulations may affirm the rights of students with intellectual disabilities, educators expressed concern that these rights are not fully realized in daily practice. Hala observed the following:

“Yes, as written policies, they do support and clearly state the rights of the student. In terms of implementation, and from what I actually observe with students in the classroom, their rights are seriously compromised. They don’t get their full right to education, to opportunity.”

Teachers suggested that this gap between policy and practice stems from structural limitations, a lack of foundational awareness, and professional readiness among educators. Ayman emphasized the role of teacher self-awareness, noting “The first and most important step is building self-awareness. Teachers need to develop an understanding of the importance of educating this group. After all, it is one of their fundamental rights.”

Faten similarly stressed the need for both attitudinal and procedural shifts, stating “There must be an effort to build awareness and acceptance of these students. Secondly, there needs to be genuine work toward implementing clear and actionable procedures.”

Support Services. Teachers underscored the importance of providing tailored support services that address the academic, emotional, and social needs of students with intellectual disabilities in inclusive settings. A central concern was the lack of meaningful assessment tools that reflect the actual progress of these students. Ali emphasized the need for differentiated evaluations, stating the following:

“It is necessary to provide assessments that measure the true level of students with intellectual disabilities in order to make them feel a sense of accomplishment, rather than including them in the same tests as other students, because this negatively affects their self-confidence.”

In addition to academic accommodation, teachers highlighted the value of structured extracurricular programs and reinforcement strategies that promote engagement and self-worth. Hala noted “The most effective approach for students is through activities, particularly educational games, that incorporate play and genuine inclusion for all groups. These are the strategies that truly make an impact.” Ayman echoed this sentiment by pointing to the importance of shared experiences beyond academics: “By engaging students together, especially in extracurricular activities such as cultural and sports programs, a sense of acceptance and cooperation naturally develops among them.”

Moreover, recognition and encouragement were seen as vital components of inclusive support. Hassan remarked “Students who require support should be recognized, even verbally, and rewarded by their teacher, as such acknowledgment reinforces their efforts and fosters a sense of motivation and belonging.”

Systemic Issues. Teachers identified several systemic barriers that hinder the successful implementation of inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities. These issues reflect the educational system’s structural, procedural, and cultural shortcomings beyond the classroom level. A recurring concern was the insufficient provision of support personnel. Faten pointed out “There is no assistant teacher available in second-grade classrooms, unlike in first grade. Even in first grade, support teachers are not present within the classroom to provide assistance.” This lack of consistent in-class support places an unsustainable burden on general education teachers and undermines individualized instruction.

Assessment practices were also criticized as being misaligned with the actual capabilities of students with intellectual disabilities. Ali remarked “There is a need for more realistic assessment. The current evaluation methods fail to capture their actual progress, limiting their sense of achievement and hindering motivation.” Without differentiated assessment tools, students may struggle not because of their inability, but because the system does not recognize or accommodate their developmental trajectories.

Additionally, procedural shortcomings in academic accommodation were reported. Hassan highlighted the superficiality of existing modifications, stating “For students with disabilities integrated into the regular classroom, no real accommodations are made. They are simply placed in a separate testing room, but they still take the exact same exam as other students, only with extended time.”

3.12. Family and Community Engagement

The theme of family and community engagement reflected teachers’ concerns about families’ limited involvement and the lack of external support structures to sustain inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities. This theme is presented through two subthemes: parental involvement and community.

Parental Involvement. Teachers identified parental involvement as a pivotal element in the success of inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities. Ali emphasized the significance of consistent communication and collaboration between home and school, stating “Cooperation between the school and the parents is essential to track the student’s progress and improvement.” Ayman echoed this view, highlighting the importance of parental preparation and engagement: “Parents are expected to follow up and monitor their children, so they already have some background knowledge and can keep up with the other students.”

However, teachers also noted that such cooperation is not always forthcoming. Faten reflected on the challenges of parental denial, stating “Where are the parents who actually accept this? It’s rare to find one who’s willing to admit their children have disability; most of them refuse.” Hala similarly pointed to a lack of understanding, adding “The problem is with the parent; they don’t understand the disability or how it should be handled. We have parents who refuse to let their child be transferred to the third level.” She further stressed the importance of aligning school and home efforts, explaining “We must gain an understanding of the student’s home environment and how their parents support them, so that our role in school reinforces, rather than disrupts, the progress being made at home.”

Community. Teachers emphasized the critical role of community awareness and involvement in supporting inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities. Inclusion, they noted, must extend beyond the walls of the school and become a broader societal commitment to understanding and accepting individuals with disabilities. Hala stressed the importance of building community-wide awareness, stating the following:

“Awareness must be fostered within schools and the broader community. It’s essential that we gain a deeper understanding of individuals with disabilities and learn how to engage with them appropriately, because they are a part of society, and we are all interconnected.”

Faten echoed this view, highlighting the societal dimension of school inclusion: “When it comes to intellectual disabilities, placing these students in regular or public schools means they’ve successfully integrated them into society.”

3.13. Logistical Barriers

The theme of logistical barriers captures teachers’ day-to-day constraints in implementing inclusive education effectively. Teachers consistently described how a lack of time and inadequate material or human resources limited their ability to meet the needs of students with intellectual disabilities. The theme comprises two subthemes: Time and Resource Constraints.

Time. Time constraints emerged as a critical barrier affecting teachers’ effective implementation of inclusive practices. Participants emphasized that the demands of managing a whole classroom, especially one that includes students with intellectual disabilities, often exceeded the instructional time available. Hala noted that although support teams exist, their presence is inconsistent, and the responsibility to accommodate students with disabilities frequently falls on teachers who are already pressed to meet curriculum goals for the rest of the class. She stated the following:

“The teacher is constrained by a limited time to complete tasks for the typical students. A student with disabilities needs additional time and accommodation, and even though the support team covers the inclusion process, they can’t be present in every class session.”

Similarly, Ali underscored the challenge of balancing instructional responsibilities in overcrowded classrooms:

“Providing the teacher with enough time to carry out necessary tasks in the classroom is essential, because honestly, the time isn’t sufficient to teach 30 students, some of whom are also students with disabilities. With such an overloaded curriculum, there just isn’t enough time.”

Resource Constraints. Teachers consistently identified a lack of resources as a significant impediment to the effective inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities. Classrooms were described as severely under-equipped, lacking the instructional materials and tools needed to support differentiated learning. Ali highlighted this issue, stating “The issue is the availability of educational resources in the classroom. We observe that our classrooms largely lack instructional materials, whether sensory or visual. Our classrooms are almost empty of these essential tools.”

Faten further emphasized the absence of structural support for inclusive teaching, expressing frustration at being tasked with educating students with disabilities without the necessary provisions: “I have students with disabilities in my class, and they receive no services; nothing at all. What support has the Ministry provided me? Just notebooks and pens.”

4. Discussion

4.1. Perceived Challenges and Student Needs

The findings highlight that general education teachers face multiple challenges in providing inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities. Quantitatively, challenges related to student characteristics were rated as moderate in severity—the lowest among the measured dimensions. This suggests that while student diversity is recognized as difficult, it is perceived as somewhat less problematic than systemic or resource-related issues. However, this lower rating may obscure the actual complexity of the challenges teachers encounter.

Qualitatively, teachers described the multifaceted needs of students with intellectual disabilities, including cognitive processing delays, low academic performance, and behavioral issues—needs that often exceed what a mainstream classroom curriculum can accommodate. These challenges demand a level of individualization that most teachers feel unprepared to provide, especially given constraints such as large class sizes, time limitations, and limited professional development. As noted by Alzahrani (2020), such complexity can result in emotional exhaustion and role strain when adequate support mechanisms are absent.

Many teachers expressed that inclusion often achieves social integration more than academic inclusion for these students. This concern reflects Hornby and Kauffman’s (2024) argument that full inclusion may fail to deliver academic progress without appropriate instructional support. At the same time, teachers’ efforts to support all learners align with inclusive pedagogy, which advocates for strategies that respond to learner diversity rather than expecting students to conform to traditional norms (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). These findings reinforce the view that inclusion must be defined by responsiveness to variability, not merely by physical placement (Ainscow & Sandil, 2010; Slee, 2018).

Such efforts would help ensure that inclusion goes beyond mere physical placement to fostering real learning growth, reflecting the “all means all” mandate of inclusive education (UNESCO, 2020). Teachers in this study reported significant difficulties implementing effective teaching practices for inclusive education. They frequently struggled to adapt instructional strategies and curricula to meet the needs of students with intellectual disabilities while managing the broader classroom. This finding reflects a gap between the ideal of inclusive pedagogy and the realities of everyday teaching.

Inclusive pedagogy emphasizes varied strategies—such as multimodal instruction, peer support, and universal design for learning—to engage all learners (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). However, many teachers in this study felt ill-equipped to implement these approaches at the necessary depth. Interview data revealed consistent challenges related to curriculum adaptation, communication techniques, and facilitating social interaction among students—each critical to inclusive instruction. The moderate level of challenge reported in the “Competence and Beliefs” survey dimension confirms that many teachers possess only partial confidence in their instructional efficacy. This aligns with research showing that general educators often lack specific methodological training for working with students with disabilities (Gallego-Ortega & Rodríguez-Fuentes, 2021).

4.2. Gender and Demographic Differences

Gender differences emerged in this area: male teachers reported greater challenges related to competence and beliefs about inclusion than their female counterparts. This is consistent with research suggesting that female teachers often express more confidence in teaching diverse learners, possibly due to differences in training experiences or underlying attitudes (Avramidis et al., 2019; Woodcock et al., 2022). Such gender-related variations in teacher self-efficacy have been observed across other regional contexts, particularly where teaching is a feminized profession and access to professional development differs systematically by gender (Sharma & Sokal, 2016; Malinen et al., 2013). These findings suggest a need for gender-responsive training that ensures all teachers, regardless of background, can build confidence and capacity for inclusive education.

4.3. Curricula, Differentiation, and Instructional Constraints

Despite their ethical commitment to equity, many teachers lacked the pedagogical tools and curricular flexibility needed to meet students’ diverse needs. Consistent with the social model of disability, the findings point to the inadequacy of standardized curricula and instructional strategies, which can act as barriers for students with intellectual disabilities (Graham et al., 2023). To address this, there is a clear need for more individualized and adaptable curricular approaches (Loreman, 2017). Teachers would benefit from professional development in differentiated instruction and greater access to specialized instructional materials, enabling meaningful participation for all learners.

This disconnect between pedagogical ideals and teachers’ readiness has been widely noted, especially in contexts where inclusion policy has outpaced teacher preparation (Sharma & Sokal, 2016; Lindner & Schwab, 2020). In Qatar, where inclusive education remains in transition, the absence of sustained professional development is a key barrier (M. K. Al-Hendawi et al., 2024). Without adequate support, many teachers default to whole-class teaching methods, which may marginalize students requiring individualized instruction. These practices risk reinforcing a deficit model of disability by centering the needs of the “average” student and upholding normative expectations for performance and behavior (Slee, 2018).

4.4. Teacher Capacity, Attitudes, and Confidence

Such collaborative approaches not only improve instructional quality but also promote shared responsibility and collective efficacy—both essential to sustaining inclusive school cultures (Leithwood et al., 2020). The findings underscore a clear limitation in teacher capacity, including attitudes, knowledge, and preparedness, and the urgent need for professional development. Quantitative data revealed that the “Competence and Beliefs” dimension of challenges was rated at a moderate-to-high level, indicating that many teachers harbor doubts about their preparedness or express concerns about inclusion.

Bridging this gap requires targeted, evidence-based professional development. For instance, workshops could model strategies such as differentiated instruction, cooperative learning with peer tutors, and the use of assistive technologies. When teachers gain practical skills and observe successful applications of inclusive techniques, their self-efficacy improves—a relationship which is well established in the literature (Woodcock et al., 2022). More confident and capable teachers are better positioned to create engaging, accessible learning experiences for all students.

However, capacity-building efforts must go beyond short-term training. Longitudinal, practice-embedded professional learning—delivered through coaching, mentoring, or professional learning communities—has been shown to support deeper instructional change (Forlin & Sin, 2017).

The survey and interview data show that general education teachers feel underprepared for the complexities of inclusion. Insufficient training has been consistently identified as a barrier both locally and globally (Alkhateeb et al., 2016; Gallego-Ortega & Rodríguez-Fuentes, 2021). In Qatar, although newer teachers are increasingly exposed to inclusive education concepts during pre-service preparation, many in-service teachers were trained under outdated models and require substantial upskilling.

Teachers in this study emphasized the need for more workshops, mentorship, and guidance—highlighting the demand for ongoing professional development to build both technical skills and positive attitudes toward inclusion. These calls align with international policy frameworks that emphasize structured, sustained teacher development as essential for inclusive school reform (UNESCO, 2020; Watkins & Donnelly, 2014). Effective capacity-building should address not only practical techniques but also foster a mindset rooted in inclusive values. According to inclusive pedagogy, teachers must believe that all children can learn in general classrooms when properly supported (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011).

Overcoming negative or deterministic beliefs is part of this transformation. An encouraging finding is that teaching experience did not significantly influence perceived challenges, suggesting that novice teachers are as open to inclusion as more experienced ones. This uniformity implies that professional development can be broadly applied across career stages without requiring sharply differentiated programming.

4.5. Professional Development and Systemic Support

These recommendations align with global inclusive education guidelines (UNESCO, 2020; Watkins & Donnelly, 2014), which emphasize Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and target professional development. For such practices to take root, systems-level reforms are also necessary—ensuring not only the availability of materials but also adequate time, training, and leadership support to implement inclusive instructional practices effectively (Forlin & Chambers, 2011; Schwab, 2020). Key recommendations include integrating comprehensive inclusive education training into teacher preparation programs, developing ongoing in-service modules focused on special needs and differentiated instruction, and creating professional learning communities for peer support. Establishing formal mentorship systems and encouraging peer observation cycles may also enhance reflective practice and pedagogical growth over time (Forlin & Sin, 2017). By strengthening teacher capacity in these ways, schools will be better positioned to implement inclusive education effectively. Research in Qatar and internationally confirms that confident, well-prepared teachers are essential for realizing genuine inclusion (M. K. Al-Hendawi et al., 2024; Loreman, 2017).

4.6. School Culture, Collaboration, and Systemic Barriers

Encouraging a collaborative school culture can further support inclusive pedagogy. Co-teaching with special educators, peer observation, and regular sharing of best practices among colleagues help teachers refine their methods over time. These collaborative structures are critical for reinforcing inclusive values and sustaining pedagogical growth (Florian & Rouse, 2009).

Our findings underscore that teachers perceived inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities as an instructional, systemic, and cultural challenge. Teachers rated “School Environment” as the most severe barrier. This quantitative result is supported by qualitative accounts describing unsupportive school cultures and rigid institutional systems. Teachers noted that while national policy in Qatar advocates for inclusion (Ministry of Education and Higher Education, 2021), implementation at the school level is often hindered by a lack of resources, aide support, and actionable guidance.

This disconnect between policy ideals and classroom realities is widely documented in the global literature on inclusive education (Watkins & Ebersold, 2016; M. Al-Hendawi et al., 2023). Similar trends have been reported in other Gulf states, where inclusion policies are introduced without sufficient infrastructure, training, or cultural alignment (Alnahdi, 2019; Aldousari & Yuan, 2024). These systemic gaps can lead to implementation fatigue among teachers, who are expected to operationalize broad mandates in under-resourced environments.

From an ecological systems perspective, the school functions as a microsystem that must interact positively with broader layers—such as education authorities, funding systems, and cultural expectations—to support inclusion (Trang Thu et al., 2022). In our study, misalignment or inadequacy at these outer layers contributed to the strain teachers experienced in trying to include students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms. This interdependence illustrates that inclusion is not merely a classroom initiative, but a multi-tiered effort requiring coherence across national, institutional, and community structures (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Ainscow, 2020).

Consistent with the social model of disability, these findings reinforce that environmental and organizational conditions—not student deficits—often act as disabling forces (Graham et al., 2023). Improving school culture and environment, therefore, becomes a crucial step in fostering inclusion. Schools should work toward a whole-school ethos where principals and leadership teams actively support inclusive values through clear policy guidelines, appropriate resource allocation, and professional encouragement (Hollings, 2021).

Creating such a culture demands proactive leadership—leadership that models inclusive behavior, allocates time for teacher collaboration, and cultivates a shared sense of responsibility across the school community (Leithwood et al., 2020). Practical measures may include assigning specialized staff to assist teachers, ensuring classrooms are physically accessible and equipped with adaptive materials, and modifying school schedules or curricula to accommodate diverse learners.

Additionally, promoting peer support structures and anti-bullying initiatives can help establish a welcoming social environment for students with disabilities. Research shows that when students feel socially accepted and respected by peers, both academic and emotional outcomes improve (Schwab, 2020; Avramidis et al., 2019). In a supportive school culture, teachers feel less isolated in managing inclusion-related challenges, which can significantly reduce their perceived burden (Moberg et al., 2020).

Attitudinal change is not solely an individual matter; it is shaped by broader school culture, leadership, and peer norms. Therefore, teacher development must be accompanied by institutional strategies that reinforce inclusive values at the systemic level (Leithwood et al., 2020; Ainscow & Sandil, 2010).

Ultimately, systemic change at the school level is not only about structural improvements but also about cultivating inclusive mindsets and fostering collective efficacy throughout the entire school community.

5. Limitations and Future Directions

While this study offers valuable insights into general education teachers’ challenges in supporting students with intellectual disabilities in inclusive settings, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the study relied primarily on self-reported data, which may be influenced by social desirability bias or individual interpretation of survey and interview questions. Although efforts were made to triangulate findings through qualitative data and validation techniques such as member checking, the possibility of response bias cannot be entirely ruled out. Second, the sample was limited to teachers working in Qatar, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings to other cultural or educational contexts.

In particular, the educational policies, teacher training systems, and cultural attitudes toward disability in Qatar may differ substantially from those in other countries. Future studies should examine whether similar challenges are reported in different sociocultural environments, including within the wider Gulf region and internationally. Moreover, the study focused exclusively on teachers’ perspectives, without incorporating the views of other key stakeholders such as school leaders, parents, or students. Including these voices in future research could provide a more holistic understanding of the systemic and interpersonal dynamics affecting inclusive education.

Given the importance of ecological systems theory in framing inclusive education, capturing perspectives across different layers of the educational ecosystem—including families and communities—would enhance the explanatory power of future studies. In addition, while this study used a mixed-methods approach, future research might benefit from longitudinal designs to examine how teachers’ perceptions evolve over time or in response to policy changes and professional development efforts.

This would allow for a better understanding of causal relationships and the long-term impact of training or policy implementation on teacher attitudes and practices. Further investigation is also needed into the effectiveness of specific intervention strategies, such as co-teaching models, differentiated instruction, or the use of assistive technologies, in improving inclusive practices. Experimental or quasi-experimental studies could assess how such interventions affect teacher confidence, student engagement, and learning outcomes. Comparative studies across countries or educational systems could also deepen understanding of how contextual factors shape the implementation and outcomes of inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities. These perspectives could help identify globally transferable strategies as well as culturally responsive approaches tailored to local needs.

6. Conclusions

This study examined the challenges that general education teachers face in implementing inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities in Qatar. Drawing on inclusive pedagogy, the social model of disability, and ecological systems theory, the findings show that effective inclusion relies on both teacher commitment and systemic support. While teachers expressed dedication to inclusion, they reported obstacles related to instructional adaptation, limited resources, and insufficient institutional backing.

Key challenges were linked to the school environment and resource availability, with male and primary-level teachers reporting greater difficulties. Despite a strong ethical commitment, many teachers lack the confidence and tools needed to support diverse learners effectively. These findings highlight the need for targeted, ongoing professional development and better alignment between policy, leadership, and practice.

To advance inclusion, systems must provide adequate funding, flexible curricula, and collaborative leadership. This study contributes empirical evidence from the Gulf region and outlines actionable steps for strengthening inclusive education through improved training, policy coherence, and stakeholder engagement—ensuring that all students, regardless of ability, can thrive in inclusive settings.