Next Article in Journal
Social Support, Service Use, Psychological Flexibility, and Well-Being Among Israeli Foster and Biological Parents of Children with Disabilities
Next Article in Special Issue
Reflections on the Quality of Life of Adults with Down Syndrome from an International Congress
Previous Article in Journal
Artistic Experience of the Visually Impaired: A Qualitative Study on the Process of Creating Clay Media Artworks for Low Vision in Indonesia
Previous Article in Special Issue
College Students with ADHD: A Selective Review of Qualitative Studies
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Disabilities
Volume 5
Issue 4
10.3390/disabilities5040099
disabilities-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Perspectives on Mainstreaming Special Education: How Principals’ and Counselors’ Attitudes Relate to Their Professional Well-Being

by
Galia Taller Azulay
1,2,*,
Tali Heiman
3,* and
Dorit Olenik Shemesh
3
1
Special Education Department, Gordon College of Education, Haifa 3570503, Israel
2
Special Education Department, The Arab College of Education, Haifa 3570308, Israel
3
Education and Psychology Department, The Open University of Israel, Ranana 4353701, Israel
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Disabilities 2025, 5(4), 99; https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5040099
Submission received: 16 June 2025 / Revised: 15 September 2025 / Accepted: 18 October 2025 / Published: 31 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Collection Exclusive Papers Collection of Editorial Board Members of Disabilities)
Versions Notes

Abstract

The current study examined the attitudes of elementary and middle school principals and school counselors toward including students with special needs in regular classrooms. 243 participants completed questionnaires on their self-efficacy, job satisfaction, stress, and attitudes toward inclusion. Additionally, 22 semi-structured interviews were conducted to gain a deeper understanding of how principals and counselors deal with the inclusion of students with special needs in their school. The study’s findings reveal a difference between middle school counselors and principals and those in elementary schools in terms of the desire for inclusion. It was also found that the less the counselors believe in themselves, the less they are in favor of inclusion, while the more satisfied they are with their work, the more they support inclusion. Qualitative analysis brought up various difficulties in the inclusion process.

1. Introduction

Through an integrated quantitative and qualitative research methodology, this study aims to examine the attitudes, perceived self-efficacy, and satisfaction of principals and school counselors in elementary and middle schools regarding the inclusion of students with special needs in mainstream educational settings. In 2007, the Dorner Committee, appointed to evaluate the state of special education in Israel, recommended that parents be granted the right to choose between special education frameworks and regular schooling for their children. This recommendation was formally adopted in 2018 with the enactment of Amendment No. 11 to Israel’s Special Education Law. Consequently, students with a broad spectrum of disabilities—including autism spectrum disorders, language development delays, behavioral disorders, sensory impairments, and learning disabilities—have increasingly been placed in general education classrooms. The relevance of this study stems from these substantial policies and legislative reforms, offering critical insights into the perceptions of principals and counselors, who serve as key agents in the implementation of inclusive education policy at the school level [1].

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Developments in the Field of Integrating Students with Special Needs in the World and Israel

Many researchers examine the nature of the inclusion of students with special needs in the regular education system [2,3]. Research on the rights of integrated students is gaining momentum in many countries trying to improve the quality of inclusion in their countries. Sperling et al. [4] examined various policies and rights related to special education services worldwide. Several countries were selected as examples due to the diversity in their legislative frameworks and approaches to inclusive education. In England, 2015 legislation introduced additional support for the central education system and increased parental involvement in their child’s education. In Sweden, the general education system is designed to accommodate all students. In the United States, students are entitled to special education services through legislation that ensures their access to the public education system [4]. In Germany, parents have the authority to decide whether their child will attend special or regular education, with the option to appeal in court if their preference is not granted. In Spain, students with special needs receive tailored adjustments only after the regular educational framework is deemed unsuitable, and there is a limit of two students with special needs per class of 25 children.
In Israel, the Special Education Law that was ratified in 1988 was the first change in legislation. Subsequently, Section 7 of the Law on Integration that was ratified in 1997 and the Learning Disabilities Law that was ratified in 2003 were also expanded. Since then, students with special needs are placed in special education classes, special classes within a regular school, or “regular” classes via individual inclusion. In 2018, Amendment 11 to the Special Education Law allowed more students with special needs to be integrated into general education frameworks. The concept of this law is that every child has equal rights and therefore should be given the right to study with their peers [5].
In 2017, about 161,000 students with special needs were integrated into regular classes. About 19% of these had a language or functional developmental delay, 4% were on the autism spectrum, and 8% had various disabilities, including physical disabilities and sensory impairments [1].
Crispel [6] notes that for teachers who have a broader knowledge of special education, their sense of self-efficacy is higher. Crispel [6] and other researchers believe that the strain on teachers increases as there are more in the classrooms [7,8,9].
Few studies examine the attitudes of principals and counselors regarding the inclusion of students with special needs in regular classes [10,11]. Hence, this study will bridge the existing gap in literature and examine the attitudes of the principals and counselors for different student age groups regarding the inclusion of students with low-incidence special needs (autism spectrum disorder, sensory disabilities, cerebral palsy, and Down syndrome) in regular classes.
Researchers have described the inclusion of students with special needs in regular education frameworks for the visually impaired [12], the hearing impaired [13,14], learners with autism spectrum disorder [15,16,17]. This research will focus on various populations such as students with sensory disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, as well as low-incidence disabilities such as cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, and developmental intellectual disabilities.
Including students with special needs is far from being a simple procedure, as Malki and Tomer [18] described. For the most part, school systems are not adequately prepared for their inclusion. Moreover, researchers [19,20] believe that positive attitudes of the principal and team are crucial for successful inclusion.
As mentioned, numerous studies have investigated teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with special needs in mainstream educational settings and the associated stress levels experienced by educators [6,21,22,23,24]. Research findings consistently indicate that teachers with training in special education demonstrate higher levels of support for inclusive practices and report lower stress levels. In a comprehensive study, Saloviita [25] examined the attitudes of three distinct groups of teachers towards inclusion. The results revealed that special education teachers did not perceive inclusion as a threat to their professional practice. In contrast, general education teachers and subject specialists who lacked appropriate training in special education exhibited more negative attitudes towards inclusive educational practices.

2.2. Principals’ and Counselors’ Roles at School

Shilshtein [26] posits that principals and their management approaches play a crucial role in the implementation and success of inclusive education, delineating three primary objectives for principals: shifting attitudes toward diversity, developing inclusive strategies, and fortifying school-community relationships. However, the multifaceted nature of a principal’s role often leads to ambiguity in its definition, involving complex interpersonal dynamics and conflict resolution [12,27,28].
Sharon [27] conceptualizes schools as organizations that require strategic management to achieve their goals. This includes setting organizational objectives, optimizing employee performance, and maintaining humane management practices. Reichel and Castleman [29] emphasize the importance of principals aligning their actions with the school’s culture, particularly regarding internal relationships between teachers, students, and administration.
For effective implementation of inclusive practices, Lynch [30] argues that principals must be well-versed in methods for integrating students with special needs into mainstream education. This expertise is considered a critical factor in enhancing school conditions and fostering student progress [31,32,33].
The complexity of a principal’s role is further underscored by the necessity to balance these inclusive education initiatives with their numerous other responsibilities. This balancing act requires adept management skills and a comprehensive understanding of both educational theory and practical implementation strategies.
Friedman [34] describes the burnout experienced by principals in general. This attrition stems from organizational problems, teacher absences, budget shortages, various conflicts, and behavior problems, which the principals must deal with. Similar issues can be found in other studies [35,36,37]. Few articles examined feelings of pressure among principals following the presence of students with special needs in their school and how they deal with these situations [26,38,39].
More specifically, Hess [12] examined principals’ attitudes regarding the inclusion of students with visual impairments, finding a correlation between the principal’s support for inclusion and teachers’ sense of cooperation with various school factors. Timor [19] noted that principals who expressed positive attitudes towards inclusion often possessed leadership qualities, being visionaries capable of inspiring their teams. However, it is recognized that no principal can manage a school alone [35].
Educational counselors have emerged as key figures in the inclusion process, essentially serving as the principal’s right hand on this issue [35]. While traditionally responsible for individual treatment [40], the counselor’s role has evolved into one of the “helping professions”, focusing on social empowerment and placing the individual at the center [41]. Hence, counselors now participate in treatment decisions and collaborate with the principal’s team.
Educational counselors in Israel now face significant responsibilities, often leading to burnout, heavy workloads, and role ambiguity [40]. They serve as a crucial link between students and professionals within the school [42] and play a vital role in integrating students with special needs into regular classes [43] as they are responsible for student treatment and future planning [44] and often have to handle stressful situations [40].
Research presents conflicting findings regarding counselors’ attitudes towards inclusion. Bowen et al. [45], for example, found that counselors sometimes had low expectations of students with special needs, and thus treated them differently. Castillo [46] noted that counselors may be nurturing preexisting stigmas about students with special needs, potentially hindering their work. In contrast, Erhard et al. [47] and Zinn-Dror [43] argue that counselors generally display positive attitudes towards inclusion and support inclusive policies in schools.
These diverse findings highlight the complexity of attitudes towards inclusion among school personnel and underscore the need for further research in this area.
In a study conducted under the auspices of the Avni Rosha Institute, Katz et al. [48] found that principals of elementary and middle schools allocate substantial time to address student disciplinary issues. These findings corroborate earlier research by Daoud et al. [49], which reported similar results. Furthermore, Katz et al. [48] elucidate that principals face significant challenges, including heavy workloads, strained relationships with staff members, and concerns regarding the procurement of resources for their school.
Principals of middle schools often encounter challenges that are distinct from those faced by their counterparts in elementary schools. Research indicates that middle school principals experience greater difficulties in managing relationships with their teaching staff, a phenomenon not commonly reported by elementary school administrators. Moreover, Friedman [34] observed that they exhibit a higher prevalence of burnout than their primary school counterparts. In a survey conducted as part of this study, 16% of all respondents reported experiencing burnout. This disparity in experiences between middle and elementary school principals underscores the unique challenges inherent in middle school leadership.
Bandura [50,51] defines self-efficacy as an individual’s belief in their ability to successfully perform specific tasks or behaviors. This perception is not solely cognitive but also influences emotional responses, particularly in stressful or unfamiliar situations [52]. Self-efficacy acts as a bridge between knowledge and action: individuals who doubt their capabilities tend to invest less effort, give up more readily when encountering obstacles, and may experience anxiety when faced with situations they perceive as beyond their control [53]. In the context of inclusive education, such beliefs can play a critical role in shaping how school principals and counselors respond to the challenges of integrating students with special needs into mainstream classrooms.
Accordingly, the present study adopts Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory as its theoretical framework for examining the key variables and the relationships between them.
This perception is not solely cognitive but also influences emotional responses, particularly in stressful or unfamiliar situations [52]. Self-efficacy acts as a bridge between knowledge and action: individuals who doubt their capabilities tend to invest less effort, give up more readily when encountering obstacles, and may experience anxiety when faced with situations they perceive as beyond their control [53]. In the context of inclusive education, such beliefs can play a critical role in shaping how school principals and counselors respond to the challenges of integrating students with special needs into mainstream classrooms.

2.3. Self-Esteem Among the School Staff

The present study aims to examine the self-esteem of principals and school counselors in elementary and middle schools within the context of inclusion policies in their respective institutions. Levinger [54] conceptualizes self-esteem as a construct directly influenced by the attitudes and evaluations of significant figures in an individual’s life. Cohen [55] posits that low or high self-esteem may result in a discrepancy between one’s real self-image and one’s ideal self-image. Individuals who perceive a failure to meet their self-imposed expectations may experience diminished self-esteem. Cohen [55] further contends that self-esteem functions as a motivational force, enabling individuals to pursue their long-term goals and fulfill a fundamental psychological need.
School management entails considerable pressures, both administrative and organizational in nature. Dor-Haim [56] identifies several factors contributing to these pressures, including resource constraints, budgetary limitations, personnel issues, interpersonal conflicts, and the myriad educational and social challenges that arise within the school environment. These multifaceted pressures significantly impact the daily operations and long-term effectiveness of educational institutions.
A comprehensive literature review reveals a paucity of research examining the self-esteem and stress levels of principals and counselors within the context of students with special needs inclusion [26,38,39]. Given the pivotal leadership roles that principals and counselors assume, it is imperative to elucidate their perspectives regarding the inclusion of students with special needs into mainstream educational settings. This study aims to explore the disparities between elementary and middle school principals and counselors, eliciting potential gaps or divergences in their attitudes towards inclusion, as reflected in extant research. These objectives have informed the formulation of our research questions.
The current investigation synthesizes findings from two discrete studies: one centered on school principals and another on school counselors. To ensure comparability and methodological consistency, identical questionnaires were administered to these distinct populations in both studies. This approach facilitates a nuanced comparative analysis of the perspectives held by these key educational stakeholders.
By adopting this dual-focus methodology, our research seeks to address the identified gap in the literature and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how school leaders perceive and navigate the challenges associated with educational inclusion. This study’s findings may have significant implications for policy development, professional training, and the implementation of inclusive educational practices.

2.4. The Current Study

The current study examined elementary and middle school principals’ and school counselors’ attitudes toward the inclusion of students with special needs in regular classrooms. It explored the associations between their sense of self-efficacy, satisfaction, and stress when dealing with the inclusion of special education students in regular classes. It addressed four questions:
  • What are the attitudes of principals and counselors in elementary and middle schools regarding the inclusion of students with special needs in regular classes?
  • Is there a connection between the attitude of principals and counselors in elementary and middle schools regarding inclusion and their self-esteem?
  • To what extent do the attitudes and perceptions of principals and counselors correlate with their job satisfaction?
  • What difficulties do principals and counselors raise regarding the inclusion of students with special needs in regular classes?

3. Methodology

3.1. Study Population

The sample consisted of 243 principals and counselors in elementary and middle schools throughout Israel that integrate students with low-frequency special needs: sensory disabilities (blindness, deafness, etc.), intellectual developmental disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, physical disabilities, rare diseases and syndromes, developmental or language delay, emotional and behavioral difficulties. Table 1 presents demographic data for the participants.

3.2. Research Tools

To learn about the research process, and obtain a comprehensive picture of the topic, a mixed-method approach was employed; Quantitative data were collected via questionnaires, while qualitative data—semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted. The mixed method provided participants with an opportunity to express their perspectives and addressed ambiguities that could not be fully clarified by each method. Sabar Ben-Yehoshua [57] believes that the combination of the two methodologies together constitute enhances the validation of a study’s findings.
Interviews are employed to investigate individuals’ experiences and to gain a deeper understanding of the cultural context that shapes human behavior [58]. Participants are commonly recruited through snowball sampling, a technique in which each participant refers to additional potential respondents from within their social network. In contrast, quantitative research focuses on testing theoretical frameworks and identifying relationships between variables, with the aim of presenting empirical data and validating or refuting established hypotheses.

3.3. Research Instruments

The following tools were applied in the collection of quantitative data. These questionnaires were part of a previous study about school principals and their attitudes towards inclusion [59].

3.3.1. Demographic Questionnaire

The questionnaire consists of various details such as age, education, area of residence, gender, religious affiliation, seniority in education, the number of students with special needs in the school, and their characteristics. The demographic questionnaire was given to both principals and counselors.

3.3.2. General Self-Efficacy [60]

This questionnaire consists of 14 items and examines beliefs concerning abilities and goal achievement. Sample items include: ‘I can succeed in any task when I am determined.’, and ‘I am able to do things well under very difficult conditions’. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) ‘do not agree at all’ to (5) ‘very much agree’. The Cronbach alpha in the original study was 0.97 [59].

3.3.3. Job Satisfaction and Commitment Questionnaire [61]

This questionnaire consists of 23 statements divided into six key areas: Benefits from work, e.g., ‘In general, how enjoyable do you find your work?’; Costs deriving from work, e.g., ‘To what extent, in general, does your work involve difficulties?’; Investment at work, e.g., ‘All things considered, by some means you will lose the activities you are connected to through work if you leave it.?’; Job alternatives, e.g., ‘Evaluate the alternatives you have for yourself and your job, relative to your ideal way of spending your time.’; Degree of satisfaction, e.g., ‘In general, how much do you like your job?’; Commitment to work, e.g., ‘How long would you like to stay in this job?’ Responses were given on a Likert scale ranging from (1) ‘not at all’ to (9) ‘very much’.
In the original study Cronbach’s alpha for work benefits was α = 0.81–0.92, costs α = 0.58–0.86, investment α = 0.75–0.80, job alternatives α = 0.60–0.77, commitment α = 0.88–0.93, and degree of satisfaction α = 0.93–0.95. In the current study, the overall Cronbach’s alpha was α = 0.92 [59].

3.3.4. ORM—Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming [62]

This questionnaire was modified for principals and counselors. The scale consists of 14 items ranked on a Likert scale from 1 (disagree) to 5 (very much agree). The statements are divided into positive and negative ones referring to attitudes that are favorable or unfavorable to inclusion, respectively. An example of a favorable item reads: The inclusion is designed to prepare students with disabilities for real life.’ An example of an unfavorable item reads: ‘In inclusion, students with disabilities receive less academic assistance services.’ The Cronbach’s alpha for the negative items was α = 0.75, and for the positive items, α = 0.9 [59].

3.3.5. Semi-Structured Interviews with Principals and Counselors

In addition to the questionnaires, to obtain qualitative data, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 principals and 11 counselors. The interviews sought to examine the feelings and attitudes of the participants regarding the inclusion of students with special needs (SNN) in their school. The questions were prepared before the interview but could be modified as a function of the responses throughout the interview. The questions asked about principals’ and counselors’ background, as well as personal, social, and systemic issues. For example: ‘How do you see the inclusion of the students socially?’ ‘What other challenges do you see in the context of the school inclusion process (budget, school climate, the quality of learning and teaching, etc.)’.
The interviews were audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed. The transcripts were analyzed using the Narralizer Software (version 2014) [63], which enables the digitization of high-quality data for research purposes. The analysis process within this software unfolds in several phases. Initially, the interview texts were carefully examined to detect patterns and segments, providing a comprehensive understanding of the material. In the second phase, the thematic units identified in the first stage were organized and categorized. The third phase involved constructing a “hierarchical tree of themes,” followed by the fourth phase, in which a tabular list was generated to display the prevalence of findings and their subcategories. In the final stage, the results were synthesized based on the tabulated data.

3.4. Procedure

This study adopted a “snowball” methodology, where participants anonymously completed questionnaires via links distributed through email or mobile devices. Participants were duly apprised that the data would be exclusively utilized for the present study. Interviews were conducted with 11 principals and 11 educational counselors as participants.

3.5. Data Analysis

The quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS software, which was applied to compute variable distributions, mean values, and standard deviations. Pearson correlation coefficients were employed to assess the associations among the variables. To examine group differences, an independent samples t-test was conducted. The qualitative interview material was processed with Narralizer software, which facilitates the identification of overarching themes and sub-themes [63].
The questionnaire data were analyzed to identify differences between elementary and middle school principals and counselors regarding their perspectives on the inclusion of students with special needs in mainstream classrooms. In addition, associations among attitudes toward inclusion, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction were investigated. For these analyses, SPSS version 24 was utilized. Pearson correlation analyses were conducted to assess relationships among the variables, while independent-samples t-tests were applied to evaluate group differences between principals and counselors.

4. Results

4.1. Quantitative Findings

To examine the attitudes of principals and counselors in elementary and middle schools, regarding the inclusion of students with special needs in regular classes, a two-factor analysis of the variance test was performed (Table 2).
Table 2 shows a two-factor analysis of the variance test; it was found that there is no difference between the attitudes of the principals and counselors toward the inclusion of students with special needs. The same test revealed a significant difference between counselors and principals in middle school and principals and counselors in elementary school (M = 3.71, SD = 0.77) and special education (M = 3.41, SD = 0.79), F (1, 237) = 6.24, p = 0.013 where in elementary schools there is a greater desire for inclusion. The interaction variable is not significant.
Table 3 shows two-factor analysis of variance test was performed with a dependent variable score against inclusion and explanatory variables group (consultants/principals), type of school (elementary/middle school), and interaction between them.
No difference was found between elementary school and middle school. A difference was found between counselors (M = 3.02, SD = 0.73) and principals (M = 2.74, SD = 0.72), F (1, 237) = 5.59, p = 0.019. The interaction variable is not significant.
Table 4 shows the relationship between the attitudes of principals and counselors in elementary and middle schools regarding inclusion and their sense of self-efficacy.
Table 4 shows that the less the counselors believe in themselves (low self-efficacy), the less they support the inclusion of students with special needs.
An ANOVA analysis was performed with dependent variables versus combination and explanatory variables group (counselors/principals), self-efficacy, and their interaction, for elementary schools. It was found that the group effect is statistically significant, F (1, 237) = 5.38, p = 0.021. Examining the relationship between resistance to inclusion and self-efficacy among counselors and principals separately, a significant negative correlation was found among counselors, r = −0.241, p = 0.016, but among principals, the relationship is not significant.
Table 5 shows that the greater the counselors’ job satisfaction, the more they support inclusion. This significant positive correlation between job satisfaction and support for inclusion is found only among counselors. There is a significant negative correlation between job satisfaction and resistance to inclusion, among both counselors and principals.
An ANCOVA analysis was performed with job satisfaction as the dependent variable and group (counselors/principals), attitudes in favor of inclusion and the interaction between them as explanatory variables.
A significant correlation was found between job satisfaction and support for inclusion, F (1, 240) = 9.65, p = 0.002. The interaction variable is not significant.
Examining the relationship between support for inclusion and job satisfaction among counselors and principals separately, a significant positive correlation was found among counselors, r = 0.219, p = 0.027, but among principals, the relationship is not significant.
Table 6 examined the relationships between the inclusion of students with special needs (SNN), resistance to inclusion, and the level of job satisfaction among principals. However, no statistically significant correlation was found between inclusion and principals’ overall satisfaction level (r = 0.163, p = 0.052). Furthermore, a significant negative correlation (r = −0.304, p < 0.01) was found between resistance to inclusion and satisfaction, suggesting that as principals expressed higher levels of resistance to inclusion, their satisfaction levels decreased. These findings indicate that attitudes toward inclusion play an important role in determining principals’ satisfaction levels, and reducing resistance to inclusion may have a positive impact on their satisfaction.

4.2. Qualitative Analysis

The qualitative analysis of the semi-structured interviews was conducted using Narralizer software [63]. The content analysis yielded five themes: (1) How the principal and the counselors see the included student (academic inclusion, social inclusion); (2) Level of involvement in the inclusion; (3) Difficulties dealing with the staff; (4) Difficulties dealing with the parents; (5) Budgetary problems.
For the first theme—perceptions of the academic and social inclusion of the included student—the principals and counselors are of the same mind regarding including the students with special needs in regular classes. Both believe that successful inclusion depends on the child’s difficulties, as can be seen in the words of the principals, who state that the inclusion depends on the child’s ability and on his objective difficulties. For example, Principal Avi claims: “It really depends. It is true that, for the most part, the included students are less strong academically, but not really. We are busy with reinforcing, very intensive teaching to give the included students something more to do.” Similar comments were made by the counselors, who claim that the disability itself affects the child’s learning, ability, and motivation. Tamar claims: “Each case is unique, and we consider each case differently”. Some perform well academically and need less, and there are those whose studies are a problem, and they then decide in advance what this combination will look like.
The study shows that both counselors and principals agree that the inclusion will succeed if the child is committed to it. Socially, inclusion is different. Both the counselors and the principals see and express difficulties. Principal Roy explains that the child should receive an envelope that includes the school’s treatment, the child’s desire, and the parents who must be on board with it: “Everything rises and falls on the motivation of the student, the staff and the parents. There are times when there are regressions or a delay in the process because there is something in the triangle that falters”.
Counselors stated the same thing. For example, counselor Alona claims: “The child with autism has difficulties socially even though he is intelligent, but he is not with us, he cannot find his place, he leaves the classroom and cannot manage without an assistant. The hard-of-hearing child is also very complex. He is unable to form social relationships. He looks different; he has muscle weakness, and he is tall for a first-grader. This makes social interactions difficult for him, especially since there is a child with behavioral disorders who seems to be afraid of him”. Similarly, Manor adds, “It’s not easy; it takes time for them to connect… there are children who fail to connect.”
It can be concluded that both principals and counselors understand that social inclusion is difficult for students with special needs and that it amplifies their challenges.
The second theme is the involvement of the principals and counselors. While the principals see themselves as full partners in the decisions regarding the inclusion of the students, the counselors feel differently. For example, Aviv claims: “I sat on the committees, and could you decide? No, it depends on the parent. That’s why children did not fit”. Similarly, Meital describes the difficulty in obtaining the authority to decide which child will go where “All the children who are admitted are accepted by the decision of the municipality… In the past, parents would come to the conversation, and we could decide… today we don’t. I have children that I accept by phone”.
When the principals and consultants were asked about their involvement in the inclusion, the counselors felt excluded from the process even if they wanted to be involved. Most principals felt that they were part of the work of inclusion. Amit claims: “Of course, I am on the inclusion committees, in their segmentation, follow-up meetings, and pedagogical meetings… We have a team meeting once a week with the details, the psychological consultant, the inclusion coordinator, and my…”.
Another theme that emerged is the insufficient knowledge of teachers, which creates difficulties for students, especially when managing a class of 30 children, including those with special needs. Consequently, teachers may sometimes find themselves caught in the middle of conflicts between principals and counselors. This is evident in Miriam’s description of the challenges teachers face when entering a classroom with a child who has special needs: “I experience objections from the staff. There is a child in the seventh grade who causes problems; the teachers who have him for an hour do not want to be with him…”.
There are also difficulties with parents. Principal Avi describes a situation where parents are the ones who determine where their child should study, which brings with it difficulties: “A child with autism spectrum disorder who did not fit in came to us, but the parents decided, and it was difficult. We all collapsed—and the parents refused. The staff is not trained to handle such a level in the classroom.” Principal Tamar made a similar comment: “The objections are in the very early stages, such as objections to the diagnosis, the name of the difficulty, the name of the objections, every parent thinks that they gave birth to the next prime minister. They don’t want to see… and if there are outbursts, it is the school’s fault”.
From a budgetary perspective, both principals and consultants view the same difficulties: “These students receive a small budget, which is insufficient,” says counselor Danit. Likewise, counselor Meital also believes that there is a significant challenge in obtaining resources for those children’s needs: “First of all, there is a lack of budgets. The children require assistance, should we give it to assistants or to treatments”.
In summary, for the most part, principals and consultants concur about inclusion, but there are areas of disagreement. From an academic point of view, it is evident that this field is not a problem for the school, as there is a concern within the school for the child’s learning. The social perspective, however, is more problematic. Sometimes, the assistant who has been with the child during the entire recess time is a social barrier, or the parents may be an obstacle because they do not recognize their child’s difficulties. The triangle of parent-student-teacher support should be maintained. As indicated, parents are not always aware of the child’s challenges and insist on regular education due to issues of stigma or proximity to their place of residence.
Since 2018, teachers are required to provide support to all students as part of the latest reform. Both principals and counselors face difficulties with teachers who sometimes refuse to enter a class with a student with special needs, as they do not know how to control the situation.
In terms of inclusion, the decision is made by the parents. Although principals and counselors serve on committees, it is ultimately the parent or the municipality that makes the final decision. On the other hand, the principals view their involvement on the committees as part of the decision-making about inclusion.

5. Discussion

This study examines the roles of counselors and principals in the inclusion of students with special needs into regular classes at their schools. It also examined their attitudes and perceptions regarding the process itself. Also examined were the participants’ job satisfaction, sense of self-efficacy, and stress levels. Principals are the schools’ figureheads and are responsible for what happens at the school; however, they are not alone. Alongside them is the educational counselor.
Regarding RQ1—attitudes of principals and counselors in elementary and middle schools regarding the inclusion of students with special needs in regular classes—no significant difference in attitudes was evident in either the quantitative or qualitative data. However, the quantitative study did show a notable difference between counselors and principals at the middle school level compared to their elementary school counterparts. It appears that elementary schools are generally more open and equipped for inclusion, possibly because elementary school principals do not directly face the challenges of these students. In contrast, middle schools involve multiple figures in a student’s education. While elementary schools typically have one main teacher guiding the class, middle schools have many individuals responsible for students, which can lead to confusion and a lack of awareness about what is happening in various lessons. Stoddart [64] maintains that principals and counselors strive to find the best ways to support struggling students. Adolescence is a particularly complex time, marked by heightened challenges that can impact inclusion in schools. The transition from elementary to middle school can be confusing and dramatic, introducing significant social and academic changes.
Alabri [65] discusses principals’ positive attitudes toward inclusion, noting that this optimistic perspective might stem from the fact that these principals are not physically present in the classroom and therefore do not experience the challenges. Similarly, Cohen [66] highlights this positive attitude. These insights connect closely with the findings of the current Regarding RQ2—how the attitudes of principals and counselors in elementary and middle schools correlate with inclusion, self-esteem, and stress—the data reveals an interesting trend: the lower the sense of self-efficacy of the counselors, the more resistant they are to inclusion. This can be attributed to the recent reforms, which have placed unexpected pressures on them, leaving them feeling they are just trying to survive.
Another point to consider is that when an additional factor, such as a student with special needs, is introduced, counselors may feel they lack the necessary tools to handle the situation, leading to resistance to inclusion. Research literature supports this notion in other groups, e.g., teachers. According to Kiel et al. [67], teachers with a strong sense of self-efficacy tend to invest more effort and are more motivated to support inclusion. Similarly, they [67] found that teachers with a strong sense of self-efficacy view themselves more positively when teaching students with special needs. Malinen et al. [68] emphasize that the more practical experience teachers gain during their training with students with special needs, the stronger their sense of self-efficacy becomes.
Due to RQ3, this study examined the correlation between the participants’ attitudes and their job satisfaction. The quantitative analysis revealed that the greater the counselors’ job satisfaction, the greater their support for inclusion. Numerous studies define job satisfaction as an emotional response characterized by a sense of self-realization in the workplace. High job satisfaction often leads to positive behaviors [69]. According to Taller Azulay et al. [70], counselors who engaged in various roles related to their professional responsibilities reported greater success and felt more committed to their jobs.
While no articles or studies were found on educational counselors advocating for this issue, some studies focus on teachers who have addressed the topic [71,72,73].
Research Question 4 explored the difficulties that principals and counselors encounter in the process of including students with special needs in regular education settings. During the interviews, counselors and principals highlighted several obstacles related to the inclusion process. The interviewees mentioned issues such as academic difficulties, social challenges, the struggle teachers face in managing a child with special needs, and two interconnected problems: the tension with parents who want their child to be in a regular education setting and the lack of control in guiding the child to the appropriate environment.
When it comes to academic challenges, the counselors and principals agree that successful academic inclusion largely depends on the student’s motivation and willingness to participate. However, they place significant emphasis on the social inclusion challenges. In some cases, children are paired with aides, which can hinder their social interactions, especially during recess. Research indicates that social inclusion often varies based on the type of disability. Naon et al. [74] claim that students with sensory impairments (e.g., blindness or deafness) tend to integrate more smoothly than those with cognitive impairments such as Down syndrome and intellectual disabilities, or those on the autism spectrum. Other researchers suggest that more physical inclusion in the classroom can provide social benefits for students with special needs [75,76]. These conclusions, however, contradict the findings of the current research.
Throughout the interviews, the challenges faced by teachers were mentioned repeatedly. Counselors and principals noted that they receive numerous requests for help from teachers with students with special needs in their classes. The teachers express concerns about their lack of knowledge in managing these students, indicating a lack of necessary tools to support them and tailor material accordingly. There is considerable evidence confirming the difficulties teachers are experiencing [8,23,43,77,78].
The interviewees noted they do not have control over which children are referred to their school. While they participate in meetings, the ultimate decision lies with the parents. This means that even though they share their opinions for or against certain approaches, the final choice is made by the parents. This challenge is compounded by another issue they highlighted: the struggles with the parents themselves. Guter [79] found that parents find it difficult to accept that their child requires special education and may prefer to enroll them in regular education due to concerns about stigma. As a result, the fit between the student’s needs and the type of education provided is not always ideal. Similar observations can be found in the work of Guter [79] and Levinger et al. [80].
This study employs a mixed-methods approach that integrates both quantitative and qualitative data to gain a comprehensive understanding of the inclusion of students with special needs in regular education settings. In several areas, the qualitative data support and deepen the quantitative findings. For example, while the statistical analysis indicates a correlation between counselors’ self-efficacy and their support for inclusion, the interview data reveal that recent reforms have undermined counselors’ sense of control and preparedness—providing an explanatory layer to the quantitative trends. Similarly, the finding that higher job satisfaction correlates with more positive attitudes toward inclusion is echoed in interview responses, where counselors who feel more professionally fulfilled describe a greater willingness to support inclusive practices. However, some discrepancies also emerge between the two methods. For instance, although no significant differences were found in the general attitudes of counselors and principals across educational levels in the quantitative data, the interviews suggest that middle school environments present more structural and interpersonal challenges to inclusion than elementary schools. This nuanced understanding would not have surfaced through quantitative analysis alone.
Thus, the integration of quantitative and qualitative findings not only validates specific trends but also reveals the complexity of the inclusion process, emphasizing the importance of considering both statistical patterns and human experiences in educational research.

6. Conclusions

The study concludes that both principals and educational counselors generally hold positive attitudes toward the inclusion of students with special needs, though differences emerge between educational levels. Elementary schools tend to be more open and better equipped for inclusion, likely due to their simpler structure and fewer staff involved. In contrast, middle schools face greater challenges due to the involvement of multiple educators and more complex student needs. The study found that counselors with higher self-efficacy and job satisfaction are more supportive of inclusion, whereas those feeling overwhelmed by recent reforms tend to resist it. Interviews revealed recurring challenges, including academic and social difficulties, teachers’ lack of tools and training, and tension with parents who often push for inclusion even when it’s not the best fit for their child. Social inclusion was identified as particularly complex, varying by the type of disability. Overall, the findings highlight the importance of practical training, ongoing professional support, and collaborative dialog with parents to ensure effective and meaningful inclusion.

7. Limitations

This research has several limitations. It does not examine potential differences between counselors and principals from rural areas and those from larger cities. The reliance on online questionnaires introduces challenges, particularly concerning missing responses and the reasons participants declined to complete them. Additionally, there was no control over gender representation; there were more male principals than female principals and more female counselors than male counselors. Moreover, the number of counselors interviewed varied between those working in elementary schools and those in middle schools, where sometimes the findings were not statistically significant.
This study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting its findings. First, it does not examine potential differences between counselors and principals in rural versus urban settings, which may influence attitudes toward inclusion due to variations in resources, school culture, or access to support services. Additionally, the use of online questionnaires introduced challenges, including incomplete responses and the inability to determine why some participants chose not to complete the survey.
There was also no control over gender representation: more male principals and more female counselors participated, which may have influenced variables such as attitudes, self-efficacy, and stress levels. Finally, the number of counselors interviewed varied between elementary and middle schools, which at times limited the statistical significance of certain findings. These limitations should be considered when considering the generalizability and implications of the results.

8. Research Implications

This study aims to examine the attitudes and self-efficacy of school principals and counselors in elementary and middle schools regarding the inclusion of students with special needs in mainstream classes. From a theoretical perspective, the research is expected to provide insights into how these educators perceive the inclusion of students with special needs across different age groups and diverse school populations. Furthermore, the study assesses the self-efficacy of counselors and principals and investigates whether they experience pressure due to the inclusion process.
Extant research on the perspectives of principals and counselors is limited, and the differences between them across age groups (elementary vs. middle schools) have not been examined for over a decade. Consequently, a renewed examination is necessary to bridge the knowledge gap that has emerged during this period. Additionally, there is a paucity of theoretical literature in recent decades regarding the diverse perspectives among counselors on the issues under investigation.
This research may also have practical implications. It could potentially assist various stakeholders in the education system by mapping the attitudes of principals and counselors toward the inclusion of students with special needs. Moreover, enhancing support for these educators might enable them to provide improved guidance to teachers. The greater the mental and emotional resources available to a principal or counselor, the better they can assist their teaching staff.
The topic has been scarcely explored [26,38,39] and given that principals and counselors are school leaders, it is crucial to address and elucidate this issue. The findings and conclusions of this study will contribute to the existing body of knowledge. The metrics developed may lead to a more nuanced understanding of how to provide optimal support and solutions for principals and counselors in schools that include students with special needs in regular classrooms.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.T.A., T.H. and D.O.S.; methodology, G.T.A., T.H. and D.O.S.; software, G.T.A., T.H. and D.O.S.; validation, G.T.A., T.H. and D.O.S.; formal analysis, G.T.A., T.H. and D.O.S.; investigation, G.T.A., T.H. and D.O.S.; resources, G.T.A., T.H. and D.O.S.; data curation, G.T.A., T.H. and D.O.S.; writing—original draft preparation, G.T.A., T.H. and D.O.S.; writing—review and editing, G.T.A., T.H. and D.O.S.; supervision, G.T.A., T.H. and D.O.S.; project administration, G.T.A., T.H. and D.O.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ministry of Education (protocol code: #11530; date of approval: 22 December 2020) and the Open University Ethics Committee (protocol code: #3610; date of approval: 14 November 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all research participants.

Data Availability Statement

The data are not unavailable due to privacy and ethical restrictions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Disability Language/Terminology Positionality Statement

This study employs person-centered language (e.g., “students with special needs”) consistent with conventions established in public health and medical research, which emphasize prioritizing the individual prior to their disability. This approach aligns with guidelines from organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), which promote respectful and inclusive language in health communication. The term “students with special needs” encompasses a diverse range of students with disabilities who participate in regular educational settings, including those with Autism Spectrum Disorder, learning disabilities, visual impairments, and auditory impairments. The term “sensory disabilities” functions as an overarching, inclusive descriptor for disabilities that impact sensory functions. Meanwhile, terms such as “vision loss” and “hearing loss” are utilized within disability surveillance and clinical contexts to describe functional limitations without making assumptions regarding individual identity or diagnostic categorization.

References

  1. Weissblei, E. The Special Education System—A Review Submitted to the Education, Culture and Sports Committee of the Knesset; Education, Culture and Sports Committee of the Knesset: Jerusalem, Israel, 2023. Available online: https://fs.knesset.gov.il/globaldocs/MMM/6f649722-de37-ed11-8153-005056aa4246/2_6f649722-de37-ed11-8153-005056aa4246_11_19908.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  2. Borders, C.M.; Gardiner-Walsh, S.; Herman, M.; Turner, M. Inclusion of deaf/hard of hearing students in the general education classroom. Adv. Spec. Educ. 2016, 31, 65–94. [Google Scholar]
  3. Zaidman-Zait, A.; Poon, B.T.; Curle, D.; Jamieson, J.R.; Norman, N. The transition to school among deaf/hard-of-hearing children: Teacher and parent perspectives. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 2019, 24, 396–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Sperling, D.; Reiter, S.; Yosefsberg Ben-Yehoshua, L. Policy on Eligibility for Special Education Services; Mofet: Tel-Aviv, Israel, 2019. Available online: https://meyda.education.gov.il/files/Scientist/sen_financing.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  5. Milstein, A.; Rivkin, D. Integration of Students with Special Needs in Regular Schools: Promoting Integration and Creating an Inclusive School Culture: A Research Report; Myers–JDC–Brookdale Institute: Jerusalem, Israel, 2013; Available online: https://brookdale.jdc.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Jan-2013-Shiluv-HEB-REP.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  6. Crispel, O. Acquiring knowledge regarding learning disabilities and the significance of ‘caring’ in teacher education. Stud. Educ. 2017, 15/16, 417–438. [Google Scholar]
  7. Sharma, U.; George, S. Understanding teacher self-efficacy to teach in inclusive classrooms. In Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Teacher Self-Efficacy; Garvis, G., Pendergst, D., Eds.; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 37–51. [Google Scholar]
  8. Crispel, O.; Kasperski, R. The impact of teacher training in special education on the implementation of inclusion in mainstream classrooms. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2019, 25, 1079–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Soodak, L.C.; Podell, D.M. Teacher efficacy and student problem as factors in special education referral. J. Spec. Educ. 1993, 27, 66–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. White, K.M. Principals’ Attitudes toward the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in the General Education Classroom. Ph.D. Dissertation, Memphis University, Memphis, TN, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  11. Workman, A.M. The Attitudes of School Principals toward the Inclusion of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder in General Education Setting: Virginia Superintendent’s Region 7. Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hess, I. Principals in integration: The relationship between principals’ attitudes towards integration and teachers’ attitudes towards integration and their perception of the school climate. J. Am. Acad. Spec. Educ. Prof. 2009, 24, 73–80. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bamu, B.N.; De Schauwer, E.; Verstraete, S.; Van Hove, G. Inclusive education for students with hearing impairment in the regular middle schools in the North-West region of Cameroon: Initiatives and challenges. Int. J. Disabil. Dev. Educ. 2017, 64, 612–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Musayaroh, S.; Aprilia, I.D. Participation of students with hearing impairment in inclusive classes. J. ICSAR 2018, 2, 15–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Goodall, C.; MacKenzie, A. What about my voice? Autistic young girls’ experiences of mainstream school. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2019, 34, 499–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Myles, O.; Boyle, C.; Richards, A. The social experiences and sense of belonging in adolescent females with autism in mainstream school. Educ. Child Psychol. 2019, 36, 8–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. O’Hagan, S.; Hebron, J. Perceptions of friendship among adolescents with autism spectrum conditions in a mainstream high school resource provision. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2017, 32, 314–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Malki, S.; Tomer, E. The Inclusion and Its Breakdown: Major Problems Regarding the Integration of Learning-Disabled Pupils in Regular Educational Frameworks; Glilit: Lehavot-Habashan, Israel, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  19. Timor, T. School leadership and integration of students with learning disabilities. Stud. Educ. Manag. Organ. 2004, 28, 14–159. [Google Scholar]
  20. Whitworth, B.A.; Chiu, J.L. Professional development and teacher change: The missing leadership link. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2015, 26, 121–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lee, F.L.M.; Yeung, A.S.; Tracey, D.; Barker, K. Inclusion of children with special needs in early childhood education: What teacher characteristics matter. Top. Early Child. Spec. Educ. 2015, 35, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fakolade, O.A.; Adeniyi, S.O.; Tella, A. Attitude of teachers towards the inclusion of special needs children in general education classroom: The case of teachers in some selected schools in Nigeria. Int. Electron. J. Elem. Educ. 2017, 1, 155–169. [Google Scholar]
  23. Heyder, A.; Südkamp, A.; Steinmayr, R. How are teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion related to the social-emotional school experiences of students with and without special educational needs? Learn. Individ. Differ. 2020, 77, 101776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Saloviita, T.; Schaffus, T. Teacher attitudes towards inclusive education in Finland and Brandenburg, Germany, and the issue of extra work. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2016, 31, 458–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Saloviita, T. Attitudes of teachers towards inclusive education in Finland. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 2020, 64, 270–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Shilshtein, Y. Actual Integration–Effective Integration Strategies from a Systemic Point of View. 2019. Hebrew Psychology Site. Available online: https://www.hebpsy.net/articles.asp?id=3884 (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  27. Sharon, M. The Experience of Becoming a School Principal from The Point of View of a ‘Home Grown’ and ‘Parachuted’ Principals. Master’s Thesis, Oranim College, Tiveon, Israel, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  28. Boyle, M.J.; Hernandez, C.M. An investigation of the attitudes of Catholic school principals towards the inclusion of students with disabilities. J. Cathol. Educ. 2016, 20, 188–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Reichel, N.; Castelman, T. The way principals and their deputies perceive the image of the ideal teacher and their role in its training. Zman Chinuch: A J. Educ. Res. Reflect. 2018, 4, 9–43. [Google Scholar]
  30. Lynch, J.M. Effective instruction for students with disabilities: Perceptions of rural middle school principals. Rural Spec. Educ. Q. 2016, 35, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Day, C.; Leithwood, K. Successful Principal Leadership in Times of Change: An International Perspective; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  32. Day, C.; Gu, Q.; Sammons, P. The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educ. Adm. Q. 2016, 52, 221–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mullen, P.R.; Gutierrez, D. Burnout, stress and direct student services among school counselors. Prof. Couns. 2016, 6, 344–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Friedman, I. School Principal Burnout: Questionnaire for Internal Reporting; Szold Institute: Jerusalem, Israel, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  35. Oplatka, I. The Essentials of Educational Administration; Pardes: Haifa, Israel, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  36. Surkis Adin, A. To Run a School in the State of Israel—A Snapshot. The Degree of Responsibility for Our School Principals Is Growing Every Year. But What About Their Autonomy and Freedom of Action? It’s Time for Education. 2018. Available online: https://www.edunow.org.il/article/3492 (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  37. Stephenson, L.E.; Bauer, S.C. The role of isolation in predicting new principals’ burnout. Int. J. Educ. Policy Leadersh. 2010, 5, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chazan, M. The attitudes of mainstream teachers towards pupils with emotional and behavioral difficulties. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 1994, 9, 261–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Janney, R.E.; Snell, M.E.; Beers, M.K.; Raynes, M. Integrating students with moderate and severe disabilities: Classroom teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about implementing an educational change. Educ. Adm. Q. 1995, 31, 86–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cohen, Y. Leadership in counseling. Educ. Couns. J. Assoc. Educ. Couns. Isr. 2014, 18, 69–76. [Google Scholar]
  41. Erhard, R. Empowering counseling in educational counseling—Faith and art. In Current Trends in Educational Counseling: Theory and Practice an Anthology in Memory of Prof. Avner Ziv; Raviv, A., Bolless, R., Eds.; Sifriat Poalim: Tel-Aviv, Israel, 2014; pp. 231–262. [Google Scholar]
  42. Pinyan-Weiss, M. Reciprocity between School Counselor and School Principal in a Successful School. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ben-Gurion University, Be’er-Shevaa, Israel, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  43. Zinn-Dror, T. Inclusion, generalization and inclusive education. Educ. Couns. J. Assoc. Educ. Couns. Isr. 2016, 19, 316–332. [Google Scholar]
  44. Almog, A.; Leyser, Y. The roles of the educational advisors and advisory interventions to promote the integration of students with special needs in the regular school. In Integrations: Educational Systems and Society; Avissar, C., Leyser, Y., Reiter, S., Eds.; Achva: Be’er-Shevaa, Israel, 2011; pp. 147–180. [Google Scholar]
  45. Bowen, M.L.; Glenn, E.E. Counseling interventions for students who have mild disabilities. Prof. Sch. Couns. 1998, 2, 16. [Google Scholar]
  46. Castillo, J.H. A Multivariate Analysis of School Counselor Engagement with Students with Disabilities. Ph.D. Dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  47. Erhard, R.L.; Umansky, T. School counselor involvement in the process of inclusion in Israel. Int. J. Disabil. Dev. Educ. 2005, 52, 175–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Katz, D.; Parkio, Y.; Less, R.; Dor Haum, P.; Kona, S.; Hofenhaimer, B.; Master-Barakal, M. Principals in Israeli Schools—A Snapshot: Following a Survey Among Principals and a Series of Interviews; Tsafnat—Institute for Research Development and Organizational Consulting: Jerusalem, Israel, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  49. Daoud, J.L.; Keller, E.P. Elementary/middle-school principals: 1998 and beyond. Educ. Dig. 1998, 64, 4. [Google Scholar]
  50. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; W. H. Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  52. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am. Psychol. 1982, 37, 122–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy. In Encyclopedia of Human Behavior; Ramachaudran, V.S., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1994; Volume 4, pp. 71–81. [Google Scholar]
  54. Levinger, M. The deaf community—Does it have a future as well? Soc. Secur. 2011, 87, 143–168. [Google Scholar]
  55. Cohen, L. Academic motivation and self-esteem of students in the classroom. Complex A Multidiscip. J. 2012, 28, 57–84. [Google Scholar]
  56. Dor-Haim, P. Personal Advice to School Principals Between the Process of Being and Talking About Doing. 2017. Hebrew Psychology Site. Available online: https://www.hebpsy.net/articles.asp?id=3621 (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  57. Sabar Ben-Yehoshua, N. The Qualitative Research in Teaching and Studying; Massada Publishing: Tel-Aviv Yafo, Israel, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  58. Seidman, I.L. Interviewing as Qualitative Research; Colombia University: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  59. Taller Azulay, G.; Heiman, T.; Olenik-Shemesh, D. Principals’ attitudes toward the inclusion of special education students in regular schools: Associations with self-efficacy, satisfaction, and stress at work. Psychology 2024, 15, 1154–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chen, G.; Gully, S.M. Specific Self-Efficacy, General Self-Efficacy, and Self-Esteem. Are They Distinguishable Constructs? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Boston, MA, USA, 10–13 August 1997. [Google Scholar]
  61. Rusbult, C.E.; Farrell, D. A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. J. Appl. Psychol. 1983, 68, 429–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Leyser, Y.; Kirk, R. Evaluating inclusion: An examination of parent views and factors influencing their perspectives. Int. J. Disabil. Dev. Educ. 2004, 51, 271–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Shkedi, A. Meaning Behind the Words: Methodologies of Qualitative Research: Theory and Practice; Ramot: Tel-Aviv, Israel, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  64. Stoddart, K. Introduction to Asperger Syndrome: A developmental-lifespan perspective. In Children, Youth and Adults with Asperger Syndrome: Integrating Multiple Perspectives; Stoddart, K.P., Ed.; Jessica Kingsley Publishers: London, UK, 2005; pp. 13–32. [Google Scholar]
  65. Alabri, W. The Inclusion of Children with Down’s Syndrome in Mainstream Primary Schools in Saudi Arabia: Understanding the Perspective of School Principals. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  66. Cohen, E. Principal leadership styles and teacher and principal attitudes, concerns and competencies regarding inclusion. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 186, 758–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kiel, E.; Braun, A.; Muckenthaler, M.; Heimlich, U.; Weiss, S. Self-efficacy of teachers in inclusive classes. How do teachers with different self-efficacy beliefs differ in implementing inclusion? Eur. J. Spec. Need Educ. 2020, 35, 333–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Malinen, O.P.; Savolainen, H.; Engelbrecht, P.; Xu, J.; Nel, M.; Nel, N.; Tlale, D. Exploring teacher self-efficacy for inclusive practices in three diverse countries. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2013, 33, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mathews, T.F. The School Counselors’ Description of Their Experiences of Emotional Exhaustion: A Phenomenological Study. Ph.D. Dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  70. Taller Azulay, G.; Heiman, T.; Olenik-Shemesh, D. The role of the educational counselor in the inclusion and integration processes. Eur. J. Spec. Educ. Res. 2022, 8, 60–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Avanzi, L.; Van Dick, R.; Fraccaroli, F.; Sarchielli, G. The downside of organizational identification: Relations between identification, workaholism and well-being. Work Stress 2012, 26, 289–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Choi, J.; Lee, J.H.; Kim, B. How does learner-centered education affect teacher self-efficacy? The case of project-based learning in Korea. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2019, 85, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Collie, R.J.; Shapka, J.D.; Perry, N.E. School climate and social-emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. J. Educ. Psychol. 2012, 104, 1189–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Naon, D.; Milshtein, E.; Marom, M. Integration of Students with Special Needs in Primary Schools: Monitoring the Implementation of the “Integration Chapter” in the Special Education Law; Research Report; Myers–JDC–Brookdale Institute: Jerusalem, Israel, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  75. Avissar, G. Teachers discuss inclusion: The way things are, 1998–2000. Issues Spec. Educ. Incl. 2002, 17, 15–24. [Google Scholar]
  76. Arbouet Harte, H. The project approach: A strategy for inclusive classrooms. Young Except. Child. 2010, 13, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Armstrong, D. Addressing the wicked problem of behavior in schools. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2018, 22, 997–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. First Inbar, H.; Galili, S. A look at the integration program of children with special needs in the regular classroom through the eyes of female students in special education frameworks. Circ. Educ. 2011, 1, 172–192. [Google Scholar]
  79. Guter, Y. Regular Education, Special Education, and Everything in Between: The Case of Students with ASD at School Age. 2021. Hebrew Psychology Site. Available online: https://www.hebpsy.net/articles.asp?id=4105 (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  80. Levinger, M.; Alhuzail, N.A. Bedouin hearing parents of children with hearing loss: Stress, coping, and quality of life. Am. Ann. Deaf 2018, 163, 328–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Demographic characteristics.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics.
ParticipantsNumberPercentage
Principals142
Counselors99
Male4618.7
Female20081.3
BA93.7
MA22993.1
PhD72.8
Elementary school17169.5
Middle school7229.3
Table 2. Variations in attitudes toward inclusion among principals and counselors in elementary and middle schools.
Table 2. Variations in attitudes toward inclusion among principals and counselors in elementary and middle schools.
SourceF (df1, df2)Sig.Partial η2
Group1.828 (1, 237)0.1780.008
School type6.236 (1, 237)0.0130.026
Group * School type0.187 (1, 237)0.6660.001
Partial η2 indicates the proportion of variance in the outcome variable that can be explained by each independent variable, after removing variance explained by other effects. Values of 0.01, 0.06, and 0.14 are often interpreted as small, medium, and large effects, respectively. “Group * School type” shows the interaction effect between the two factors. The interaction effect between Group and School type was not statistically significant, F(1, 237) = 0.187, p = 0.666.
Table 3. Principals and counselors against inclusion.
Table 3. Principals and counselors against inclusion.
NMeanSD
Counselors1023.020.73
Principals1422.740.71
Table 4. Correlations among principals and counselors: self-efficacy, and attitudes toward inclusion.
Table 4. Correlations among principals and counselors: self-efficacy, and attitudes toward inclusion.
Self-Efficacy
Total		For
Inclusion		Against
Inclusion
Self-efficacy totalPearson Correlation10.005−0.241 *
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.9640.016
N1019999
For inclusionPearson Correlation0.0051−0.384 **
Sig. (2-tailed)0.964 0.000
N99102102
Against inclusionPearson Correlation−0.241 *−0.384 **1
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0160.000
N99102102
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 5. Counselors and job satisfaction.
Table 5. Counselors and job satisfaction.
For InclusionAgainst
Inclusion		Satisfaction
For inclusionPearson Correlation1−0.384 **0.219 *
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.0000.027
N102102102
Against
inclusion		Pearson Correlation−0.384 **1−0.237 *
Sig. (2-tailed)0.000 0.016
N102102102
satisfactionPearson Correlation0.219 *−0.237 *1
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0270.016
N102102104
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 6. Principals and job satisfaction.
Table 6. Principals and job satisfaction.
For
Inclusion		Against
Inclusion		Satisfaction
For inclusionPearson Correlation1−0.536 **0.163
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.0000.052
N142142142
Against inclusionPearson Correlation−0.536 **1−0.304 **
Sig. (2-tailed)0.000 0.000
N142142142
SatisfactionPearson Correlation0.163−0.304 **1
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0520.000
N142142142
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Taller Azulay, G.; Heiman, T.; Olenik Shemesh, D. Perspectives on Mainstreaming Special Education: How Principals’ and Counselors’ Attitudes Relate to Their Professional Well-Being. Disabilities 2025, 5, 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5040099

AMA Style

Taller Azulay G, Heiman T, Olenik Shemesh D. Perspectives on Mainstreaming Special Education: How Principals’ and Counselors’ Attitudes Relate to Their Professional Well-Being. Disabilities. 2025; 5(4):99. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5040099

Chicago/Turabian Style

Taller Azulay, Galia, Tali Heiman, and Dorit Olenik Shemesh. 2025. "Perspectives on Mainstreaming Special Education: How Principals’ and Counselors’ Attitudes Relate to Their Professional Well-Being" Disabilities 5, no. 4: 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5040099

APA Style

Taller Azulay, G., Heiman, T., & Olenik Shemesh, D. (2025). Perspectives on Mainstreaming Special Education: How Principals’ and Counselors’ Attitudes Relate to Their Professional Well-Being. Disabilities, 5(4), 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5040099

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop