Mindsets for Preschool Inclusion: Preschool Teachers’ Perspectives on Disability in Early Childhood Education

Abstract

Inclusion is a process of social transformation that is profoundly shaping the field of early childhood education. According to a narrow understanding of inclusion, the focus is on the joint participation of children with and without disabilities in general educational settings. How preschool teachers perceive and facilitate the inclusion of children with disabilities in this context depends significantly on their understanding of disability. This study therefore explores preschool teachers’ perspectives on the construct of disability. The data are based on interviews with n = 21 preschool teachers working in German preschools. The results show that teachers partially view disabilities as individual deficits of the child, partially as consequences of inadequate environmental conditions, and partially as something to be avoided and deconstructed. Most teachers combine multiple understandings of disability. Overall, the results indicate that a significant number of teachers hold a mindset shaped by the assumption of two distinct groups: those with and those without disabilities (dual-group theory). The results are discussed in the context of current debates on educational inclusion and the dual-group theory.

1. Introduction

The education and care of young children with disabilities is an important part of daily practice in German preschools (Kißgen et al., 2021). While the proportion of children with disabilities attending general educational institutions is less than 50 percent in the school sector (Autor:innengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung, 2024), most children with disabilities in early childhood education are enrolled in general preschool settings (Heimlich, 2019). Sustainable, high-quality inclusion that fosters a sense of belonging and enables these children to form resilient social relationships (Hebbeler & Spiker, 2016) is considered essential to their positive development (Barton & Smith, 2015). However, preschool teachers do not always succeed in providing high-quality inclusive education for children with disabilities (Steed et al., 2023). One key factor influencing how preschool teachers arrange inclusion is their subjective perspective on these children and on the construct of disability (Tamakloe, 2018). This is the starting point of the present study. The aim is to identify the subjective perspectives of preschool teachers on the construct of disability in early childhood education settings. On this basis, we want to discuss the need to implement and expand teacher training programs that support preschool teachers in facilitating early childhood inclusion. To this end, we structured the article as follows: First, we outline the theoretical foundations of the concept of inclusion in early childhood education and give an overview of theoretical approaches to the construct of disability (Section 2). Afterwards, we present the state of research on preschool teachers’ perspectives on inclusion and disability (Section 3). This is followed by the description of the methodological approach (Section 4) as well as the presentation of the results of the study (Section 5). The paper concludes with a discussion of the results against the background of relevant theoretical considerations. Furthermore, we derive implications for the professionalization of preschool teachers in the context of inclusion (Section 6) before finally summarizing the study’s findings (Section 7).

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Inclusion in Early Childhood Education

Inclusion is a complex concept that still lacks a universally accepted definition (Francis et al., 2021). One common approach to describing inclusion from an educational perspective is the distinction between a broad and a narrow understanding of inclusion (Gebhardt et al., 2022). According to a broad understanding, inclusion refers to the joint participation of all children in general educational settings, without categorization or resource allocation based on children’s characteristics. Children are seen as members of a heterogeneous group, each with individual prerequisites and, accordingly, specific learning needs requiring individual support. In contrast, the narrow understanding of inclusion focuses specifically on the participation of children with and without disabilities in shared educational settings.

It is widely established that inclusion in early childhood education entails more than merely placing children in general educational institutions. Active involvement in educational activities, play situations, and daily routines is equally essential (Lundqvist, 2021; Odom et al., 2011). The European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2017) identifies eight key characteristics that are crucial for high-quality early childhood inclusion in this sense: (1) a friendly overall atmosphere in the preschool; (2) an inclusive social environment; (3) a child-centered educational approach; (4) a child-friendly physical environment; (5) accessible materials; (6) communication opportunities for all; (7) an inclusive teaching and learning environment; and (8) a family-friendly environment.

These characteristics are fundamental to implementing inclusion in early childhood education and care for all children (broad understanding of inclusion). At the same time, they are especially crucial for the successful participation of children with disabilities in general educational settings (narrow understanding of inclusion). Since children with disabilities face an increased risk of experiencing disadvantages in participating in general preschools (Zeng et al., 2021), actively promoting the inclusion of children with disabilities is particularly important for their participation in preschool settings. Accordingly, this study focuses specifically on children with disabilities.

2.2. Disability as a Theoretical Concept

The theoretical understanding of disability in educational discourse has evolved considerably over time. Although numerous interpretations exist and continue to be discussed (Gebhardt et al., 2022), three core models can be identified (Buchner, 2018):

The individual or medical model defines disability as pathological deviation of the individual from a general norm (Sturm, 2023). From this—deficit-oriented—perspective, disabilities are seen as personal characteristics, often equated with illness or biological defects (Goodley, 2017). A hallmark of this model is its dualistic distinction between people with disabilities (viewed as sick or “abnormal”) and those without disabilities (seen as healthy or “normal”) (Buchner, 2018). The individual model is considered outdated in contemporary educational discourse (Heimlich, 2019).

The social model of disability was developed in the 1970s and emerged as an alternative to the individual model (Reindal, 2008). In the social model, disabilities are no longer viewed solely as individual characteristics of a person. Instead, a distinction is made between the constructs of impairment and disability (Shakespeare, 2018): Impairments are considered to refer to all functional limitations of a person’s physical or mental health (Goodley, 2017). Disabilities, in this view, arise from stigmatization and exclusion processes when people who do not conform to social norms are partially or completely excluded from social participation (Dederich, 2009). The social model continues to influence scientific discourse to date, informing, for example, the WHO’s (2001) bio-psychosocial concept of disability. According to this concept, disabilities are reflected in the social limitations that individuals experience due to physical, mental, or emotional characteristics.

The third core model is the cultural model of disability. According to this understanding, disability is as a construct shaped by specific historical and cultural knowledge. The focus is on how these constructions can be explored and deconstructed (Buchner, 2018). According to this model, exclusion processes are determined by the prevailing systems with their cultural representations, which assign different meanings and values to different ways of life (Tervooren & Pfaff, 2018). In the educational context, the cultural model has gained traction particularly within the field of disability studies (Waldschmidt, 2020).

It becomes clear that there are different approaches to describing the construct of disability in theory. The following section examines the extent to which these approaches are reflected in preschool practice, particularly in the perspectives of preschool teachers.

3. State of Research: Preschool Teachers’ Perspectives on Inclusion and Disability

Preschool teachers’ perspectives on inclusion in early childhood education have already been the focus of numerous studies across different national contexts. Although the findings are not entirely consistent, there is a tendency for the majority of teachers to express support for the basic idea of inclusion (e.g., D’Agostino & Horton, 2024; Dias & Cadime, 2016; Meadows et al., 2025; Sarimski et al., 2012; Štemberger & Kiswarday, 2018; Run et al., 2022). At the same time, attitudes vary depending on teacher-related characteristics such as qualification of the teachers. For example, teachers who have received pre-service and in-service training including special education contents tend to report more positive attitudes toward inclusion (Engstrand & Roll-Pettersson, 2014; Zhao et al., 2025). The children’s prerequisites also play a role. For example, teachers generally express greater support for the inclusion of children with mild rather than severe disabilities (Rafferty & Griffin, 2005).

The way preschool teachers understand inclusion in early childhood education has also been empirically investigated. In a German study, Knauf and Graffe (2016) found that preschool teachers’ folk theories of inclusion focus primarily on the individual child and his or her participation in educational activities. The preschool group, in contrast, is primarily seen as a resource for facilitating inclusion processes. At the same time, teachers tend to see inclusion as a matter of removing or reducing barriers, positioning themselves as facilitators and moderators of this process. Overall, teachers strongly associate the concept of inclusion with the category of disability, reflecting a narrow understanding of inclusion.

Studies that focus specifically on teachers’ perspectives on the construct of disability or related concepts start at this point. In a Swedish study, Sandberg et al. (2010) explored how preschool teachers define the construct of “children in need of special support”. Two perspectives emerged: From a child-centered perspective, teachers primarily located the need for support within the child, often in reference to a medical diagnosis. From an organizational perspective, teachers focus on institutional practices that support children’s participation in preschool, for example, providing appropriate resources. The child-centered perspective was more common among teachers, especially in institutions serving a larger proportion of children identified as having special needs.

In a Canadian study, Thornton and Underwood (2013) analyzed how preschool teachers conceptualize the construct of disability. All four teachers in the study expressed assumptions that characterize disabilities both as a characteristic of the individual and a product of the interaction between the child and the environment. However, the teachers differed in their emphasis: Two teachers leaned toward an individual-centered understanding, viewing disability primarily as a deficit within the child. The other two teachers emphasized a socially oriented understanding, focusing on social barriers to participation.

Tamakloe (2018), in a study conducted in Ghana, examined preschool teachers’ beliefs about children with disabilities. The findings revealed a close connection between teachers’ beliefs and their sociocultural context as well as religious beliefs of the teachers. The understanding of disability was strongly influenced by individual-medical factors.

In a German study, Brunner (2018) examined preschool teachers’ orientations toward inclusion to explore the teachers’ constructions of “normality” and “disability”. The study found that teachers’ orientations were closely related to specific understandings of disability. For example, teachers with development-oriented orientations—who focused on the needs of individual children in preschool—tended to deconstruct the category of disability, reflecting a perspective aligned with the cultural model of disability. Teachers with structurally bound orientations—whose practices were guided by the institutional structures of the preschool—appeared to lean toward the social model, yet still closely associated disability with medical diagnoses, suggesting continued influence of the individual model.

Taken together, existing research shows a wide range of understandings of disability among preschool teachers. However, as among teachers in the following educational stages (Moriña & Carnerero, 2022), the individual model appears to remain dominant. This is of particular significance as teachers’ conceptualizations of disability are closely linked to their educational practices (Tamakloe, 2018). For instance, a teacher may interpret a child’s social problems as symptoms of a suspected medical diagnosis (individual model) and responds with strategies tailored to that presumed diagnosis—whether or not such an approach is appropriate in the specific case (Jahora, 2023). It is therefore relevant to uncover teachers’ underlying understandings of disability and to explore the prevalence of the individual model in current practice. Furthermore, the majority of research has focused on differences that exist among teachers in their understanding of disability. However, findings from the Anglo-American context indicate that one teacher does not necessarily hold just a single understanding of disability, but may express multiple understandings (Thornton & Underwood, 2013). Nevertheless, more detailed analyses of differences within teachers’ perspectives are still pending. Moreover, there is need for conducting research that focuses on differences within the perspectives of preschool teachers working outside the Anglo-American context. This is where the present study comes in. The focus is on the question what perspectives on disability are established among preschool teachers working in a Non-Anglo-American context. We are particularly interested in clarifying whether there are differences within the perspectives of the teachers. On this basis, we want to discuss the need to implement and expand teacher training programs that aim at professionalizing preschool teachers to shape inclusion processes for children with disabilities in early childhood education.

4. Methods1

To address the research question and gain insights into preschool teachers’ perspectives on the construct of disability, a qualitative study was conducted. This section outlines the sampling approach, data collection procedures, and methods of data analysis.

4.1. Sample

The results are based on a qualitative, guideline-based interview study with n = 22 preschool teachers working in preschools in southern Germany. To be included in the sample, the teachers had to currently serve, or have previously served, as lead teachers in a preschool class and had to have experiences in the institutional care of children with disabilities. The average age of the teachers was 42.64 years (min.: 25; max. 64), the average professional experience was 15.25 years. The sample was predominantly female (n = 20). Five teachers had additional qualifications specific to inclusion, e.g., inclusion specialist. Due to insufficient data on one teacher’s understanding of disability, this interview was excluded from the analyses, leaving a final sample of n = 21 teachers for the present sub-study.

Sampling for the study followed a criterion sampling approach (Moser & Korstjens, 2018) using a qualitative sampling plan (Döring & Bortz, 2016). The goal was to ensure that combinations of theoretically relevant teacher characteristics were represented in the sample. For this purpose, three criteria were used: (1) professional experience of the teachers (more than 10 years vs. less than 10 years), given that teachers’ professional experience is relevant to their attitudes toward inclusion (Emam & Mohamed, 2011); (2) preschool’s educational profile (inclusive vs. non-inclusive), as preschools with an inclusive profile typically serve a higher proportion of children with disabilities, which may shape teachers’ understandings of disability (Sandberg et al., 2010); and (3) location of the preschool (in the district of a primary school with an inclusive profile vs. not in the district of a primary school with an inclusive profile), since (a) the transition to school is an important point of reference for teachers’ practices in preschools and (b) inclusive primary schools enroll a higher proportion of children with disabilities (Heimlich, 2020). Therefore, the question of anticipating a transition to a school with or without an inclusive profile may shape preschool teachers’ practices, too.

So, the final sample includes both teachers with more (n = 12) and less than ten years of professional experience (n = 9). Some of the teachers work in preschools with an inclusive profile (n = 12), some in preschools without an inclusive profile (n = 9). Furthermore, some of the teachers work in preschools that are located in the district of a primary school with an inclusive profile (n = 14), whereas some teachers work in preschools that are not located in such a district (n = 7).

4.2. Data Collection and Analysis

The data were collected through qualitative, semi-structured and guideline-based interviews conducted between October 2021 and June 2022. Interview duration ranged from 60 to 140 min, with an average of 80 min. The interview guide was divided into four thematic sections: parental support and counselling processes for parents of children with disabilities during the transition to school, (multi-)professional cooperation between preschool teachers and other professions during the transition of children with disabilities, teachers’ school recommendations for children with disabilities, and teachers’ understanding of the concept of disability. This sub-study focuses specifically on the final theme: preschool teachers’ understandings of disability.

The data were analyzed using thematic qualitative content analysis following a deductive-inductive approach (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2022): First, the theoretical models of disability (see Section 2.2) served as deductive categories. These categories were then refined and expanded based on the interview data. For this purpose, the data material was analyzed using the deductive category system and the category system was gradually developed, based on the coded interview passages. The analysis was carried out by two independent coders who met after coding the first two interviews, after coding the first eight interviews, and finally upon completion of the full dataset. Coding decisions were discussed and validated consensually, while the category system was continuously updated. The result was a category system that reflects the understandings of disability expressed by the teachers in the interviews.

To investigate the differences within the teachers’ perspectives, we additionally analyzed whether teachers expressed multiple understandings of disability across different points in their interviews. That is, we explored whether their understanding of disability was consistent throughout their interview. A second step was therefore taken to analyze shifts in understanding over the course of each interview. This step enabled a more holistic portrayal of the teachers’ perspectives on disability.

5. Results

This section presents the results of the study. Section 5.1 highlights the teachers’ understandings of disability that emerged in the interviews. Since a single teacher could articulate multiple understandings, Section 5.2 explores the extent to which these understandings remained consistent or varied throughout the interviews.

5.1. Understandings of Disability

Overall, the teachers expressed five understandings of disability, each reflecting one of the theoretical models of disability.

Two understandings correspond to the individual or medical model: First, there is a deficit-oriented understanding of disability. Teachers with this understanding (n = 12) linked disabilities to specific deficits or weaknesses in the child or referred to medical diagnoses they consider to be the cause of the disability, respectively:

Interviewer [I]: […] How would you describe your understanding of disability?

Teacher [T]: […] So, these physical deficits, like a child does not hear, is almost blind, or is not able to hear or almost not able to hear. […] If a child, if there is some kind of […] some kind of deficit, if something doesn’t function properly, if some connection in the synapses isn’t working at all.

(I_01182022_4, pos. 18)

Second, there is an understanding in which teachers explicitly distinguish between so-called “normal” children (without disabilities) and so-called “non-normal” children (with disabilities) (n = 2). According to this understanding, disabilities were attributed to children who “do not reach the general or the norm-appropriate developmental stage and are far away from it” (I_05112022, pos. 18). The term disability was thus used to distinguish between two groups of children who are perceived as opposites.

The social model of disability is also reflected in two understandings. First, some teachers (n = 12) expressed a participation-oriented understanding. Here, the term disability was predominantly associated with structural or contextual barriers that hinder a child’s equal participation in the community or in (school) systemic structures. From this perspective, disabilities were not seen as inherent in the child, but rather as emerging from the surrounding environment:

T: Disabilities are always related to the framework conditions. That means, a child that, I don’t know, has a mobility impairment, that’s something clear-cut, yes. And lots of stairs, that just doesn’t match. But to me, that has generally nothing to do with the child, but with the stairs. And that’s my understanding.

(I_01282022, pos. 30)

The second understanding based on the social model and expressed by some teachers (n = 11) is the class-oriented understanding. This view shifts attention from the individual child that is considered to have a disability to the peer group, namely the preschool class and the other children surrounding the child in the preschool. The focus was on the child’s effect on these other children, i.e., on the class that the child is part of:

T: Um, yes, that the children […], that they also support each other and are helpful towards each other.

(I_02172022, pos. 3)

According to this understanding, disabilities arise or disappear in the social interaction between a child and the other children in their preschool class.

Finally, some of the teachers (n = 9) expressed an understanding that aligns with the cultural model: the concept-negating understanding. Here, the term disability was actively rejected, and efforts were made to deconstruct it. Thus, the idea of disability itself was questioned, and teachers attempted to either avoid the term or use it merely as a placeholder.

T: […] Yes, that every child, yes, an individual, having strengths, having weaknesses. […] And not so specifically THIS disability or THAT disability, but focus on the child.

(I_02172022, pos. 39).

5.2. Combinations of Understandings

The data analysis shows that the preschool teachers rarely (n = 4) expressed a single, consistent understanding of disability throughout their interviews: Three teachers continuously held a participation-oriented view, while one teacher consistently maintained a deficit-oriented understanding.

The majority of teachers (n = 17), however, articulated multiple understandings, often drawing on different theoretical models. These different combinations of understandings resulted in different patterns. According to these patterns, the teachers can be divided into three groups:

Group 1. Some of the teachers (n = 9) rejected the concept of disability in single interview passages, but expressed class-, participation- and/or deficit-oriented understandings at other points in the interviews. For example, Teacher 02102022 initially challenged the concept:

T: Every child has/Well, we adults also have disabilities, I say, whether/Some things you can do better and some things you can do worse. […] But I think/I don’t know if you should call it a disability. It’s just something else. People are the way they are. And I think it’s really important to see it just that way. And yes. Not everyone is the same.

(I_02102022, pos. 26)

At other points in the interview, however, the same teacher demonstrated a deficit-oriented understanding of disability. For example, she referred to a five-year-old child who has “no diagnosis” (I_02102022, pos. 5) but is nevertheless considered disabled because she believed the child’s cognitive development is comparable to that of a three- to four-year-old. The child’s cognitive level (perceived as too low) is thus seen as decisive for the disability. Similarly, Teacher 01182022_3 stated (concept-negating understanding):

T: […] I see the children. […] Well, I don’t see a child as disabled because in the end, all children are the same here.

(I_01182022_3, pos. 23)

Yet earlier, the teacher emphasized the class-oriented benefits of inclusion, noting that the children surrounding the child with disabilities “learn to be considerate” through the presence of the child with disabilities (I_01182022_3, pos. 3).

Group 2. Some of the teachers (n = 6) expressed a deficit-oriented view alongside participation- and/or class-oriented understandings. Teacher 03042022, for example, identified disabilities as being deficits located within the child, yet also emphasized the structural conditions necessary to adequately deal with the disability (e.g., appropriate care services). This reflects a participation-oriented understanding. Teacher 02112022 also explained that she links disabilities to various deficits that a child may have (deficit-oriented understanding). At another point in the interview, however, she expressed a class-oriented understanding by emphasizing that

the children were able to learn from each other […] to be considerate or more careful at times, or somehow to respond specifically to the needs of the children.

(I_02112022, pos. 5)

Group 3. Teachers who combine a deficit-, participation- and/or class-oriented view with an explicit binary distinction between “normal” and “non-normal” children are rather rare (n = 2). One example is Teacher 05112022, who explicitly stated that disabilities are reflected in deviations of the child from the “norm-appropriate developmental stage” (I_05112022, pos. 18) but also underscored the need for participation-oriented practices, advocating for “individual integration” (I_05112022, pos. 3) to support the child’s educational experience.

6. Discussion

The aim of the study was to explore the perspectives of preschool teachers on the construct of disability in early childhood education. The key findings of the study are summarized and discussed below.

6.1. Persistence of Individual-Medical Understandings of Disability

The results show that all theoretical core models of disability (see Section 2.2) can be found in the perspectives of preschool teachers. A comparison of the teachers reveals that the various understandings of disability are often found in combination. As in previous research from the Anglo-American context (Thornton & Underwood, 2013), the majority of teachers expressed multiple understandings that often drew on different theoretical models. The most frequently articulated views were grounded in the individual and social model. This is in line with recent research findings (e.g., Sandberg et al., 2010). Of particular note is the continued prominence of the individual model, despite its status as outdated in educational discourse (Shakespeare, 2018). This raises the question of how this persistence should be interpreted. Different interpretations are possible here:

On the one hand, the prevalence of deficit-oriented assumptions—which characterizes the individual model in the present study—is cause for concern. Teachers who adopt this view tend to associate disability with child-specific weaknesses, often conveying a clearly negative and stigmatizing connotation. On the other hand, these references to individual characteristics could also be interpreted as expressions of teachers’ attention to the individual needs of the children. This would be problematic if this individual understanding occurred in isolation rather than embedded in a larger context and linked to the need for support measures, for example. However, the findings indicate that such isolated views are rare: only one teacher consistently expressed a purely deficit-oriented view, while many others combined deficit-oriented understandings with class- or participation-oriented understandings, for example, indicating their awareness of the additional need for a supportive environment. This may suggest the presence of a bio-psychosocial understanding of disability among teachers (WHO, 2001), which integrates both individual needs and social conditions. Nevertheless, the persistence of deficit-oriented—and thus stigmatizing—assumptions about disability in this interpretation remains problematic.

6.2. Tendency Toward Dual-Group Thinking Among Preschool Teachers

While deficit-oriented understandings were widespread among preschool teachers, the second understanding associated with the individual model—explicitly distinguishing between “normal” and “non-normal” children—was rare. Only a few teachers consciously and explicitly verbalized such dual-group theory thinking, which posits that children with and without disabilities exist as separate groups, with the construct of disability serving to distinguish between these two groups (Wocken, 2014). Yet the findings raise the possibility that dual-group assumptions may persist unconsciously in the minds of the teachers:

For example, the frequent references to the deficits of children who are considered to have a disability indicate that the teachers tend to have internalized such a distinction between dual groups. Accordingly, most teachers distinguished between two groups: “deficient” children with disabilities and “non-deficient” children without disabilities. However, it is important to note that the explicit focus on the construct of disability in the interviews may have prompted teachers to reproduce dual-group thinking in their statements. Possibly, teachers merely used the term disability as a discursive placeholder to be able to argue and take a position in the interviews. This may also explain the finding that all teachers who initially rejected the term disability (concept-negating understanding) went on to use it later in the interviews.

One particularly striking finding—not easily explained by the methodological design of the study—is that a substantial number of teachers located disabilities firmly within the child, describing them in terms of deficits or weaknesses. This reflects a deeply embedded dual-group mindset: even if the term disability is used “only” for discursive convenience, there is no structural necessity to define disability in terms of deficits inherent in the child (rather than, for example, the prevailing conditions). The question arises how this tendency toward dual-group thinking can be explained. One the one hand, it may be rooted in the persistence of traditional ideas among teachers who define disabilities as damage to health. One the other hand, it is certainly also rooted in the organization of the German education system, in which formal labels—often tied to medical diagnoses—continue to play a decisive role in determining access to specific support measures and school placements (Gasterstädt et al., 2020). From the viewpoint of educational staff, it may therefore seem entirely appropriate (or at least difficult to avoid) to focus on medical diagnoses and, consequently, on the child’s deficits.

Yet in light of the current debate on inclusion, this mindset, even if it is unconscious, warrants critical reflection. In German educational discourse, dual-group thinking is typically associated with the “integration paradigm”, which presupposes the existence of two distinct groups: one group (children with disabilities) to be integrated into another (children without disabilities) (Hinz, 2002). In Anglo-American discourse, similar ideas are encapsulated in the concept of “mainstreaming” (Kavale, 2002). Both approaches are generally viewed as precursors to inclusion (Göransson & Nilholm, 2014). In contrast, inclusion—in its broad understanding—rejects this binary logic and instead posits a single heterogeneous group of children, all of whom are entitled to full participation (Hinz, 2002). In early childhood education, this ideal is realized through learning materials and communication opportunities for all, but also through an inclusive atmosphere (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2017) and a corresponding mindset among educational staff (Tamakloe, 2018). While awareness of children’s needs is essential for creating developmentally supportive environments and an inclusive atmosphere for all children, labeling individual children as “deficient” undermines the inclusive ideal. A more constructive approach would involve fostering a strengths-based perspective among preschool teachers—one that emphasizes children’s potential rather than their deficits. That would mean shifting the focus away from weaknesses and developmental risks and toward developmental potential that can be addressed. This could also help raise awareness that (in the broad sense of inclusion) all children have potential that needs to be developed, and that rigid dichotomies (e.g., “deficient” vs. “non-deficient” or “in need of support” vs. “not in need of support”) are inappropriate. To facilitate this shift, targeted professional development programs—that is, programs that address the mindsets of teachers and raise their awareness of such potential—seem promising. Training programs have already proven effective in promoting the beliefs of (prospective) teachers about inclusion (Rakap et al., 2017; Seçer, 2010) and could therefore be beneficial in this context, too. Training that includes practical parts and gives preschool teachers the opportunity to get in touch with children with disabilities seems particularly useful. A theoretical framework that supports this assumption is provided by the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954). According to the contact hypothesis, real-life contact with members of a group can contribute to reducing prejudices towards the group. Accordingly, training programs that encourage teachers to get in touch with children with disabilities have the potential to reduce prejudices towards these children (Lebzelter, 2021). In this way, understandings of disability that are guided by the medical model may be dismantled.

Against this backdrop, it would also be worthwhile to critically examine a discussion about the current support allocation practices in the German education system, which rely heavily on formal diagnoses and are inherently based on a dual-group mindset. At this point, the ‘labeling-resources dilemma’ (Wocken, 1996) comes to the fore. The ‘labeling-resources dilemma’ describes the situation that the allocation of special education resources in Germany often requires the formal diagnosis of special educational needs and therefore the labeling of the child. The underlying assumption is that there are two distinct groups: children “without special educational needs” who are not considered eligible to receive special educational support; and children “with special educational needs” who are considered eligible to receive special educational support and are labeled accordingly. However, these labels may be stigmatizing and cause negative consequences for the labeled children, for example, negative biased evaluations of academic performance in school (Franz et al., 2023). It is thus questionable if such a labeling-based allocation of resources in the educational system is appropriate. Therefore, this topic needs to be further discussed in public debates. Since sufficient resources are considered key to high-quality inclusion in preschool settings (Steed et al., 2024), this discussion gains particular relevance.

6.3. Limitations and Outlook

This study has several limitations. First, the interviews were explicitly framed around the construct of disability, which may have contributed to reifying the concept in the teachers’ responses (Prengel, 2014). Furthermore, social desirability bias cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless, it is notable that a surprisingly high number of teachers openly expressed deficit-oriented views, which are not typically considered socially acceptable. It is also important to emphasize that despite the prevalence of the individual model and deficit assumptions, not all teachers drew on deficit-based constructs. In particular, three teachers consistently expressed participation-oriented understandings, without reference to deficits. These cases stand out and merit further exploration—possibly through case studies that provide deeper insights into the subjective beliefs and educational practices of these teachers. Another limitation concerns the method of analysis. The study relies on thematic qualitative content analysis, which allows only indirect inferences about unconscious assumptions. However, this procedure is not suitable for directly capturing implicit meanings. Future research could therefore employ reconstructive approaches. Finally, the limited sample size of the present study must be acknowledged. To increase the scope of the results, further quantitative surveys would be useful. The present study could serve as a qualitative foundation for such work.

7. Conclusions

The present study explores preschool teachers’ perspectives on disability in early childhood education, specifically the way preschool teachers understand the concept of disability. A particular focus is placed on the extent to which there are differences within the perspectives of the teachers. On this basis, we derive need for further developments in teacher professionalization. The results show that the teachers view disabilities partially as being rooted in deficits and/or medical diagnoses (individual-centered understanding), partially as the result of inadequate conditions (social-oriented understanding), and partially as something to be avoided and deconstructed (concept-negating understanding). The individual and social-oriented understandings are the most common. The majority of teachers express multiple understandings of disability (e.g., individual-centered and social-oriented). These findings are in line with previous research (e.g., Sandberg et al., 2010; Thornton & Underwood, 2013). Our study contributes to the research landscape by considering German preschool teachers. It thus helps to identify differences within the perspectives of preschool teachers working outside the Anglo-American context. Previous research has primarily focused on differences within the perspectives of preschool teachers from the Anglo-American context (Thornton & Underwood, 2013) or on differences among teachers (e.g., Tamakloe, 2018). Based on our results, it can be concluded that there is a need to implement and expand training programs for teachers that counteract deficit-oriented understandings of disability.