ISSN: 3048-9423(Online)

Naveen International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences (NIJMS)

© NIJMS | Vol. 1 | Issue 5 | April-May 2025
Available online at: https://nijms.com/
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71126/nijms.v1i5.52

Inclusive Education: Current Practices, Challenges,

and Future Directions
Dr. Bhavna singh
Assistant professor, Dept. of Teacher Education, S.M.P.G.G.P.G. college, Meerut, up
corresponding author Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT:
This paper examines the current state of inclusive education, focusing on its
implementation, challenges, and effectiveness across various educational contexts. Through a
comprehensive review of literature and empirical studies, we explore how inclusive education
practices have evolved, the barriers to successful implementation, and evidence-based
strategies that promote equitable learning environments. Our findings highlight the
importance of systemic reform, teacher preparation, and collaborative approaches to advance
inclusive education. Furthermore, we propose a framework for future research and policy
development that addresses persistent gaps in inclusive practice while recognizing the
diversity of student needs and educational contexts.
Keywords: inclusive education, educational equity, special education, universal design for learning, teacher
preparation.

1. INTRODUCTION:
Inclusive education represents a transformative approach to education that aims to ensure all students,
regardless of their abilities, backgrounds, or needs, have equal access to quality educational opportunities
within the same learning environments. The evolution of inclusive education reflects broader societal shifts
toward recognizing diversity and promoting equity (Ainscow, 2020). While early approaches to education for
students with disabilities often relied on segregated settings, contemporary inclusive education advocates for
restructuring educational systems to accommodate all learners within mainstream classrooms (UNESCO,
2020).
The philosophical underpinning of inclusive education is rooted in social justice principles that reject
discrimination and marginalization while promoting full participation in society (Florian, 2019). United
Nations Convention Hights F Person with Disability with Disability (UNCRPD) and Sustainable Development

NIJMS | Received: 15 April 2025 | Accepted: 21 April 2025 | Published: 31 May 2025 (24)
 www.nijms.com

Goal (SDG), especially according to international frameworks such as SDG4, which confirms and promotes
lifelong education for all, (2015). The strategy accepts that education is a fundamental human right.
Despite widespread agreement on the moral and ethical imperatives for inclusive education, its
implementation varies significantly across different contexts. This paper examines current practices, persistent
challenges, and promising approaches in inclusive education, with the aim of informing future research,
policy, and practice.
2. Theoretical Frameworks for Inclusive Education
2.1 From Integration to Inclusion
The journey from segregation to inclusion has been marked by significant conceptual shifts. The
integration model, which gained prominence in the 1970s and 1980s, focused on placing students with
disabilities in mainstream settings while expecting them to adapt to existing educational structures (Slee,
2018). In contrast, inclusive education emphasizes transforming educational systems to accommodate diverse
learners' needs (Armstrong et al., 2021).
2.2 Social Model of Disability
The social model of disability, which emerged as a counterpoint to medical models that located
disability within individuals, has significantly influenced inclusive education theory (Oliver, 2013). This
model conceptualizes disability as arising from societal barriers rather than individual impairments, shifting
focus to how educational environments can be redesigned to remove barriers to participation and learning
(Shakespeare, 2014).
2.3 Universal Design for Learning
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) provides a practical framework for implementing inclusive
education by emphasizing flexible approaches to how information is presented, how students demonstrate
knowledge, and how students engage in learning (Meyer et al., 2014). UDL recognizes the natural variability
in how students learn and advocates for multiple means of engagement, representation, and action/expression
to accommodate this diversity (CAST, 2018).
3. Current Practices in Inclusive Education
3.1 Policy Frameworks
Inclusive education policies exist at international, national, and local levels, creating complex and
sometimes contradictory frameworks for implementation. International agreements such as the Salamanca
Statement (UNESCO, 1994) and the UNCRPD (2006) have established inclusive education as a global
priority. However, these commitments are interpreted and implemented differently across various contexts
(Haug, 2017).
In high-income countries, inclusive education policies often focus on ensuring Disabled students gain
proper convenience in mainstream settings. For example, individuals in the United States orders the Disabled
Education Act (IDEA) that disabled students should be educated in the "minimum of restricted environment"
for their needs (US Department of Education, 2020).

Naveen International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences (NIJMS) (25)

 www.nijms.com

In countries with low and middle -income, education policies often consider widespread issues of
access cess and equity, including obstacles related to poverty, gender and geographical location. These policies
often act within the limits of the resource that limits their effective implementation (Suala and Johnstone,
2022).
3.2 Instructional Approaches
Effective inclusive education relies on evidence-based instructional approaches that accommodate
diverse learning needs. Co-teaching approaches, in which special education and general education teachers
work together, have demonstrated potential in developing classrooms that benefit all students (Friend et al.,
2010). In a similar vein, differentiated instruction maintains high standards for all students while customizing
teaching strategies, resources, and evaluation to meet their needs (Tomlinson, 2017).
Response to Intervention (RTI) and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) are two
examples of multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) that offer structured frameworks for early detection and
treatment of behavioral and academic issues through progressively more intensive interventions (Sailor et al.,
2020). These approaches aim to prevent difficulties from escalating while ensuring all students receive
appropriate support.
3.3 School-Wide Approaches
Research indicates that successful inclusive education extends beyond individual classrooms to
encompass whole-school approaches (Ainscow & Sandill, 2010). School leadership plays a crucial role in
establishing inclusive cultures by articulating clear values, distributing leadership responsibilities, and
allocating resources effectively (Theoharis & Causton, 2014).
Professional learning communities foster collaborative problem-solving among educators, creating
opportunities to share expertise and develop innovative approaches to inclusion (Stoll et al., 2016). These
communities are particularly effective when they include diverse stakeholders, including parents,
paraprofessionals, and specialists.
4. Challenges and Barriers to Inclusive Education
4.1 Systemic Barriers
Despite policy commitments to inclusion, many education systems maintain structures that impede full
implementation. Competitive educational marketplaces may incentivize schools to prioritize high-achieving
students, creating disincentives for enrolling students who require additional support (Waitoller & Lubienski,
2019). Similarly, high-stakes accountability systems that emphasize standardized test performance may
marginalize students with diverse learning needs (Darling-Hammond, 2017).
Resource allocation remains a significant challenge, with many schools lacking the funding, staffing,
and material resources needed to support inclusive practices effectively (Frattura & Capper, 2016). This
challenge is particularly acute in under-resourced communities and low-income countries, where basic
educational infrastructure may be inadequate.
4.2 Professional Preparation and Development

Naveen International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences (NIJMS) (26)

 www.nijms.com

Teacher preparation programs often provide insufficient training in inclusive practices, leaving many
educators feeling unprepared to teach diverse learners effectively (Florian & Camedda, 2020). Pre-service
teachers may receive limited exposure to inclusive settings during their training, reinforcing the perception
that specialized expertise is required to teach students with disabilities.
In-service professional development frequently offers fragmented approaches to inclusion rather than
comprehensive, sustained support for transforming practice (Waitoller & Artiles, 2016). Additionally, the
preparation of school leaders often neglects the specific knowledge and skills needed to lead inclusive schools
effectively (Billingsley et al., 2018).
4.3 Attitudinal Barriers
Attitudes toward inclusion among educators, parents, and students significantly influence
implementation efforts. Teacher beliefs about their ability to teach diverse learners and about the educability
of all students shape their instructional decisions and interactions (Jordan et al., 2010). Similarly, parental
concerns about academic standards, resource allocation, and social acceptance may generate resistance to
inclusive approaches (de Boer et al., 2010).
Deficit perspectives that locate educational difficulties within students rather than environments
remain pervasive, perpetuating low expectations and segregated practices (Sailor, 2017). These perspectives
are often reinforced by professional specializations that emphasize categorical approaches to disability and
intervention.
5. Evidence of Effectiveness
5.1 Academic Outcomes
Research on the academic impact of inclusive education shows mixed but generally positive results.
Meta-analysis suggests that students with disabilities receive better academic results in the settings contained
compared to different environments, especially when proper support is provided (oh-ying and filler, 2015).
However, the quality of implementation significantly influences these outcomes, with poorly implemented
inclusion potentially yielding neutral or negative effects (Gilmour, 2018).
For students without disabilities, studies generally show that inclusive education either has no
detrimental effect on academic achievement or is associated with modest positive effects (Szumski et al.,
2017). These benefits may result from increased instructional differentiation, peer learning opportunities, and
enhanced teaching practices that benefit all students.
5.2 Social and Emotional Outcomes
Inclusive education can promote positive social relationships, reduce prejudice, and enhance social
skills among diverse learners (Schwab et al., 2018). Students with disabilities in inclusive settings often report
higher levels of social acceptance and more diverse friendship networks compared to peers in segregated
settings (Bossaert et al., 2013).

Naveen International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences (NIJMS) (27)

 www.nijms.com

However, mere placement in inclusive settings does not guarantee positive social outcomes. Structured
interventions to promote social inclusion, such as cooperative learning, peer support systems, and explicit
social skills instruction, are often necessary to realize these benefits (Carter et al., 2016).
5.3 Long-term Outcomes
Emerging longitudinal research suggests that inclusive education may be associated with improved
post-school outcomes for students with disabilities, including higher rates of employment, community
participation, and independent living (Hehir et al., 2016). These benefits appear to be mediated by increased
access to rigorous curriculum, higher expectations, and enhanced social capital developed in inclusive
environments.
6. Promising Approaches and Future Directions
6.1 Intersectional Approaches to Inclusion
Future development of inclusive education requires addressing the complex intersections of disability,
race, socioeconomic status, language, gender, and other dimensions of diversity (Artiles et al., 2016).
Intersectional approaches recognize that students may experience multiple forms of marginalization that
interact to shape their educational experiences and outcomes.
Culturally responsive inclusive education integrates attention to cultural diversity with disability-
inclusive practices, recognizing that cultural contexts influence how disabilities are understood and addressed
(Gay, 2018). This approach is particularly important for addressing the overrepresentation of culturally and
linguistically diverse students in special education programs.
6.2 Technology-Enhanced Inclusion
Digital technologies offer promising tools for advancing inclusive education by providing multiple
means of engagement, representation, and expression (Edyburn, 2013). Assistive technologies can reduce
barriers to participation for students with disabilities, while learning analytics may enhance educators' ability
to identify and address individual learning needs promptly (Sorensen et al., 2020).
However, realizing the potential of technology requires addressing issues of access, usability, and
digital literacy among both students and educators. Additionally, technological solutions must complement
rather than replace human relationships and pedagogical expertise.
6.3 Systems Change and Capacity Building
Sustainable inclusive education requires comprehensive systems change that addresses policies,
practices, and cultures at multiple levels (Kozleski et al., 2013). Building system capacity for inclusion
involves developing coherent policies, realigning resources, establishing supportive organizational
structures, and fostering collaborative networks (Cobb et al., 2018).
Multi-tiered technical assistance frameworks provide promising approaches for supporting
implementation across diverse contexts, recognizing that schools and districts have varying needs and
capacities (McCart et al., 2014). These frameworks emphasize data-based decision making, implementation
science principles, and differentiated support strategies.

Naveen International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences (NIJMS) (28)

 www.nijms.com

7. Conclusion
Inclusive education represents a complex, multifaceted approach to educational reform that aims to
ensure all students can participate and succeed in quality learning experiences. While significant progress
has been made in developing theoretical frameworks and evidence-based practices for inclusion, substantial
challenges persist in implementation across diverse contexts.
Future advancement of inclusive education requires addressing systemic barriers, enhancing
professional preparation, challenging deficit perspectives, and developing approaches that respond to the full
diversity of student needs and contexts. Additionally, research must continue to examine the conditions
under which inclusive education is most effective and the specific practices that promote positive outcomes
for all students.
Ultimately, inclusive education is not merely a set of practices but a continuous process of
identifying and removing barriers to participation and learning. Its success depends on ongoing commitment
to equity, collaboration among diverse stakeholders, and willingness to transform educational systems to
accommodate human diversity.
REFERENCES
[1] Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international
experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7-16.
[2] Ainscow, M., & Sandill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: The role of
organisational cultures and leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(4), 401-416.
[3] Armstrong, D., Elliott, J., Hallett, F., & Hallett, G. (2021). Understanding child and adolescent
development for educators. Cambridge University Press.
[4] Artiles, A. J., Dorn, S., & Bal, A. (2016). Objects of protection, enduring nodes of difference:
Disability intersections with "other" differences, 1916 to 2016. Review of Research in Education,
40(1), 777-820.
[5] Billingsley, B., DeMatthews, D., Connally, K., & McLeskey, J. (2018). Leadership for effective
inclusive schools: Considerations for preparation and reform. Australasian Journal of Special and
Inclusive Education, 42(1), 65-81.
[6] Bossaert, G., Colpin, H., Pijl, S. J., & Petry, K. (2013). Truly included? A literature study focusing on
the social dimension of inclusion in education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(1), 60-
79.
[7] Carter, E. W., Asmus, J., Moss, C. K., Biggs, E. E., Bolt, D. M., Born, T. L., Brock, M. E., Cattey, G.
N., Chen, R., Cooney, M., Fesperman, E., Hochman, J. M., Huber, H. B., Lequia, J. L., Lyons, G.,
Moyseenko, K. A., Riesch, L. M., Shalev, R. A., Vincent, L. B., & Weir, K. (2016). Randomized
evaluation of peer support arrangements to support the inclusion of high school students with severe
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 82(2), 209-233.
[8] CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. CAST.

Naveen International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences (NIJMS) (29)

 www.nijms.com

[9] Cobb, R. B., Lipscomb, S., Wolgemuth, J., & Schulte, T. (2018). Improving post-high school
outcomes for transition-age students with disabilities: An evidence review. Institute of Education
Sciences.
[10] Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from
international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291-309.
[11] de Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2010). Attitudes of parents towards inclusive education: A
review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(2), 165-181.
[12] Edyburn, D. L. (2013). Critical issues in advancing the special education technology evidence
base. Exceptional Children, 80(1), 7-24.
[13] Florian, L. (2019). On the necessary co-existence of special and inclusive education. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(7-8), 691-704.
[14] Florian, L., & Camedda, D. (2020). Enhancing teacher education for inclusion. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 43(1), 4-8.
[15] Frattura, E. M., & Capper, C. A. (2016). Integrated comprehensive services for equity: A social
justice framework for educational leaders. Myers Education Press.
[16] Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An
illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational and
Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9-27.
[17] Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). Teachers
College Press.
[18] Gilmour, A. F. (2018). Has inclusion gone too far? Weighing its effects on students with disabilities,
their peers, and teachers. Education Next, 18(4), 8-16.
[19] Haug, P. (2017). Understanding inclusive education: Ideals and reality. Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research, 19(3), 206-217.
[20] Hehir, T., Grindal, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, R., Borquaye, Y., & Burke, S. (2016). A summary of
the evidence on inclusive education. Abt Associates.
[21] Jordan, A., Glenn, C., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2010). The Supporting Effective Teaching (SET)
project: The relationship of inclusive teaching practices to teachers' beliefs about disability and ability,
and about their roles as teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 259-266.
[22] Kozleski, E. B., Yu, T., Satter, A. L., Francis, G. L., & Haines, S. J. (2013). A never ending journey:
Inclusive education is a principle of practice, not an end game. Research and Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 38(1), 70-72.
[23] McCart, A., Sailor, W., Bezdek, J., & Satter, A. (2014). A framework for inclusive educational
delivery systems. Inclusion, 2(4), 252-264.
[24] Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice.
CAST Professional Publishing.

Naveen International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences (NIJMS) (30)

 www.nijms.com

[25] Oh-Young, C., & Filler, J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and
social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities,
47, 80-92.
[26] Oliver, M. (2013). The social model of disability: Thirty years on. Disability & Society, 28(7), 1024-
1026.
[27] Sailor, W. (2017). Equity as a basis for inclusive educational systems change. Australasian Journal of
Special Education, 41(1), 1-17.
[28] Sailor, W., McCart, A. B., & Choi, J. H. (2020). Reconceptualizing inclusive education through
multi-tiered system of support. Inclusion, 8(1), 17-33.
[29] Schuelka, M. J., & Johnstone, C. J. (2022). Global inclusive education: Measuring progress and
improving practice. Springer.
[30] Schwab, S., Gebhardt, M., Krammer, M., & Gasteiger-Klicpera, B. (2018). Linking self-rated social
inclusion to social behaviour. An empirical study of students with and without special education needs
in secondary schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30(1), 1-14.
[31] Shakespeare, T. (2014). Disability rights and wrongs revisited (2nd ed.). Routledge.
[32] Slee, R. (2018). Inclusive education isn't dead, it just smells funny. Routledge.
[33] Sorensen, L. C., Bushway, S. D., & Gifford, E. J. (2020). Getting tough? The effects of discretionary
principal discipline on student outcomes. Education Finance and Policy, 1-74.
[34] Stoll, L., Brown, C., Spence-Thomas, K., & Taylor, C. (2016). Perspectives on teacher leadership for
evidence-informed improvement in England. Leading and Managing, 21(2), 76-91.
[35] Szumski, G., Smogorzewska, J., & Karwowski, M. (2017). Academic achievement of students
without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research
Review, 21, 33-54.
[36] Theoharis, G., & Causton, J. (2014). Leading inclusive reform for students with disabilities: A
school- and systemwide approach. Theory Into Practice, 53(2), 82-97.
[37] Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms (3rd
ed.). ASCD.
[38] UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education.
UNESCO.
[39] UNESCO. (2020). Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all.
UNESCO.
[40] United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
United Nations.
[41] U.S. Department of Education. (2020). 42nd annual report to Congress on the implementation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. U.S. Department of Education.

Naveen International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences (NIJMS) (31)

 www.nijms.com

[42] Waitoller, F. R., & Artiles, A. J. (2016). Teacher learning as curating: Becoming inclusive educators
in school/university partnerships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 360-371.
[43] Waitoller, F. R., & Lubienski, C. (2019). Disability, race, and the geography of school choice:
Toward an intersectional analytical framework. AERA Open, 5(1), 1-12.

Cite this Article:

Dr. Bhavna singh, “Inclusive Education: Current Practices, Challenges, and Future Directions”, Naveen
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences (NIJMS), ISSN: 3048-9423 (Online), Volume 1, Issue5, pp. 24-32, April-May
2025.
Journal URL: https://nijms.com/
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71126/nijms.v1i5.52

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Naveen International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences (NIJMS) (32)